Se tenir en rangs sur le pont pour affronter la mort ? Héroïsme militaire et récits de naufrages de navires britanniques dans la presse durant la Première Guerre mondiale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Cet article se penche sur l’imaginaire militaire véhiculé par les récits de naufrages de navires britanniques durant la Première Guerre mondiale à travers une source principale : la presse. Nous nous pencherons plus spécifiquement sur les cas de navires de transport de troupes et des navires-hôpitaux, dont la particularité est que les marins sont minoritaires à bord. Pourquoi ces récits se centrent-ils sur le motif d’une parade militaire sur le pont d’un navire en perdition ? En réponse à ce questionnement, nous suggérons que ces récits constituent l’écho d’un naufrage inaugural, celui du Birkenhead en 1852, qui donna forme à l’héroïsme lors de telles catastrophes maritimes. Ces récits devaient rassurer les lecteurs de la presse nationale et locale sur la valeur des troupes britanniques tout en les poussant à accepter certains sacrifices quotidiens en temps de guerre. Abstract: This article examines the military imaginary conveyed by accounts of British shipwrecks during the First World War through one main source: the press. We will focus more specifically on cases involving troop transport ships and hospital ships, their specificity being that sailors are in the minority on board. Why do these accounts focus on the motif of a military parade on the deck of a sinking ship? To answer this question, we suggest that these accounts echo an earlier shipwreck, that of the Birkenhead in 1852, which shaped the notion of heroism during such maritime catastrophes. These accounts were intended to reassure readers of the national and local press about the value of British troops while encouraging them to accept the sacrifices of everyday life in wartime.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".