The material front: an examination of nonhuman agential forces in First World War fiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“The Material Front: An Examination of Nonhuman Agential Forces in First World War Fiction” reads ostensibly human-focused wartime texts for nonhuman experience. More specifically, it considers two Modernist novels, Richard Aldington’s Death of a Hero (1929) and Ernest Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms (1929), from a Material Ecocritical perspective. The duration, technological evolution, and extreme violence of World War I fractured long-established Western frameworks and had ecological consequences that were overlooked on the battlefields and, subsequently, have been ignored in contemporary scholarship. This thesis advocates for placing the focus on often underestimated nonhuman actors and experiences in fictional war retellings. The body chapters address Aldington’s and Hemingway’s respective approaches. Chapter 1, “The Hazards of Underestimating Nonhuman Power in Aldington’s Death of a Hero,” tracks the consequences of Capt. George Winterbourne’s dismissal of topographical, botanical, and zoological elements of the nonhuman in his passage from a rural British childhood to his suicide on the Western Front. Chapter 2, “Capitalizing on the Power of the Nonhuman in Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms,” follows Lt. Frederic Henry’s journey from the Alpine Front to neutral Switzerland and examines the topographical, meteorological, and zoological elements he utilizes to aid in his escape. Drawing together the findings of the previous two chapters, and juxtaposing Death of a Hero and A Farewell to Arms explicitly, Chapter 3, “For the Acknowledgement of Nonhuman Agency,” concludes the thesis by reiterating the implications of ignoring the nonhuman. It also reasserts the potential benefits of entanglements between the human and nonhuman.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".