Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The novelty of enlistment and foreign postings evoked feelings of juvenility among enlisted men, but it went well beyond new recruits. Contemporary understandings of “infantry” emphasized the “infant” roots of the term, defining all of the rank-and-file as childlike. The army required men to surrender themselves entirely to officers’ control. The latter treated the men under their command as helpless children, without the capacity to manage their own money or even properly feed and clothe themselves. This was especially true of soldiers with children of their own, since the army refused to pay them enough to support their offspring. It promoted itself as a refuge for men wanting to avoid adult responsibilities, but in actuality, it simply hampered any who wished to become responsible husbands and fathers. Hardened veterans returning to civilian life were also infantilized when their war wounds left them physically weakened and reliant on charity for survival. Rank-and-file autobiographies contain traces of their resistance to infantilization, especially in their accounts of pet-keeping and pranks. Instead of highlighting their juvenility, ranker memoirists framed soldiers’ ventriloquist hijinks as subversive wit, and their expertise with animals as evidence of their sensibility. This kind of resistance to infantilization had limited effect. Most rankers opposed being treated like children in ways that cannot be easily captured by the documentary record. Officers gloried in the idea of the childlike soldier because it emphasized their own benevolence and reinforced their superiority.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".