MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408394871 · doi:10.15353/whr.v11.6411

Strong Spirits: A 1941 Court Martial Case of Canadian Sappers in England Who Decided to Shoot Up the Town

2025· article· en· W4408394871 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Murad Alizada–Hamidlinski

Bibliographic record

VenueWaterloo Historical Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootLawHistoryPolitical scienceAncient historyBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the story of two Canadian sappers Lorne Long and Maurice Francis Flynn, who were stationed in England in February of 1941. In the true spirit of a hard days’ night, these sappers went pub crawling, got drunk, and decided to grab a rifle and shoot up the nearby town. When their bunkmate overheard the conversation, he reported it to their Lance Corporal, also drunk at the time, who in turn tried to apprehend them in the dark English countryside. Sapper Long did not like that and shot at him five times, missing every shot. Armed with a flashlight, the intoxicated Lance Corporal returned to the garrison garage and attempted to commandeer a truck for the manhunt. A sober captain stepped in and stopped him. The next morning, the hungover Long woke up in the woods as a stray dog was licking his face. He walked back, passed the guards without a problem, missed the formation while cleaning his rifle, and was promptly arrested. Looking at this incident through courts martial files and related documents, we will reconstruct the events and characters involved and try to understand why these men could behave like this only twenty years after prohibition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0200.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterloo Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207