American and Canadian Great War Nurse Writers: A Difference of Perspective?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The accounts of World War I nursing experiences range from the nurses’ letters home, to histories penned by the nurses, to their semi-fictionalized short stories. This article examines and contrasts the short stories of two well-known American authors, Mary Borden and Ellen La Motte, with the writings of two Canadian nurses, Agnes Warner and Mabel Clint. Its purpose is to explore the reasons for the variance in emphasis and perspective. Both Warner’s letters home as well as Clint’s later history provide many points of contrast to the two American writers. Borden and La Motte’s short stories helped define the contemporary conception of the Great War as a futile and senseless waste of human life. Warner’s contemporary letters from the same hospital, while acknowledging the horror, do not share that sense of pointlessness and futility. Similarly, Clint’s history places the Canadian nurses’ experience squarely within what she saw as her nation’s legitimate war effort.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it