Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Army children had a diverse range of experiences. Even those given official permission to follow the drum could be jettisoned on retreats or when soldier fathers died. Young camp followers were not always miserable, however; there are accounts of children finding comfort and pleasure at play in camps and garrisons. Large ships and tropical animals delighted young eyes. In fact, they were even more likely than their parents to experience alienation when the regiment returned to England from abroad. The Army might become a surrogate family, with officers and men alike helping to care for youngsters. This was less true of the enslaved children purchased to help officers’ wives, or the Eurasian offspring fathered by soldiers in colonial garrisons. Even the most cherished sons and daughters of the Army could be turned out of baggage carts when military goals clashed with juvenile interests. Contemporaries’ obsession with the serviceman’s orphan has obscured mothers’ significance in Army children’s lives. They were with their mothers more than their fathers, so her loss held far more terror than that of their father. Children in the midst of war also faced the threat of their own death, injury, imprisonment, and dislocation, yet the Army denied them the right to medical attention and took minimal responsibility for their safety, blaming their mothers for their unwanted presence in combat. The challenges faced by Army children persist today, indicating that the mobility and danger of military life can never be fully reconciled to juveniles’ need for stability and safety.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.022 |
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".