Bibliographic record
Abstract
would fade, the sensorial affect of this period would linger to adulthood (86).It is these sensorial experiences that make up the small stories of war (84).Chapter 3 by Andrew Burtch complements Lorenzkowski's work by also considering how emotions impeded wartime planning efforts during the atomic scare.Burtch shows that while civil defence efforts aimed at distilling a sense of calmness and certainty among Canadian residents, these planning initiatives in fact did the opposite and only heightened the fear of imminent danger.Kristine Alexander and Ashley Henrickson, in chapter 4, look at how children managed their emotions with anxious mothers and absentee fathers who were sent abroad to serve.Other chapters, such as chapter 5 by Isabel Campbell and chapter 7 by Deborah Harrison and Patrizia Albanese, highlight the constraints of military family life on children during the Cold War and Canada's mission in Afghanistan.These authors demonstrate children sometimes rejected prescriptive familial norms in adulthood or stood in as caregivers.Chapter 6 by Tarah Brookfield demonstrates how generations of youth found solace on Grindstone Island, despite the ongoing and persistent effects of war.This edited collection is more than just a collated assemblage of articles on the history of children and youth in times of conflict.It brings theses voices together in concert in new and unique ways.The collection also serves more than just an additive to the field; it provides a relevant and meaningful look at the history of children and youth and is particularly applicable to historians looking to conduct transnational work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.012 |
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".