Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than one hundred years after the end of the conflict, the Great War (1914–1918) has remained an integral part of the cultural memory of many countries around the globe. The significance that is still ascribed to the Great War became particularly apparent in the context of its centenary, which led not only to numerous new publications and films about the Great War, but also to art installations that could hardly fail to attract the attention of all generations. In the UK, the installation “Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red”, designed by Paul Cummins and Tom Piper, which officially opened at the Tower of London on 11 November 2014, featured thousands of ceramic poppies to commemorate the British soldiers killed in the Great War. 1 Its location at a UNESCO World Heritage Site that is also one of the main tourist attractions in the British capital contributed to making the installation highly visible. As Paul Hardin Kapp and Cele C. Otnes observe, “during the five months that saw the planting of 886,246 red ceramic poppies, approximately five million people viewed them”. 2 At this point, the poppy had already served as a symbol for commemorating fallen soldiers in the United Kingdom and other anglophone countries for a century, ever since the Great War. 3 The flower’s “iconic status stems from its prominence in the poem In Flanders Fields , written by Lt. Colonel John McCrae, a Canadian physician who witnessed the atrocities of the war. First published on 8 December 1915 in Punch , it became an immediate testament to the staggering casualty toll”. 4 Poppies also played an important role in various Australian projects on the occasion of the centenary, for example, during ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) commemorations in Melbourne in 2015, which saw an impressive installation of thousands of handcrafted poppies. 5 Both displays, beyond doubt, confirm the significance of visual symbolism in remembering the Great War.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.492 | 0.312 |
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".