<em>The Valour and the Horror</em> Controversy and the <em>Official History of the RCAF</em>, Volume 3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The publication of Volume 3 of the Official History of the Royal Canadian Air Force by Brereton Greenhous, Stephen J. Harris, William C. Johnston and William G. P. Rawling, (University of Toronto Press, 1994) reawakened the media controversy over The Valour and the Horror, particularly that related to the “Death by Moonlight” episode. Although there are certain similarities in approach between the Official History and the film, some of them superficial and some of them not, the differences are far more significant than the similarities. Volume 3 is in fact a comprehensive and well-documented history of the RCAF’s overseas operations in the Second World War; the RCAF’s role in the bombing offensive occupies 344 of 909 pages of text. Though much of this section is taken up with the origins and history of No. 6 (RCAF) Group, the authors also examine the origins of the RAF’s bombing philosophy in the 1919–1939 period, and trace the evolution and execution of RAF bombing policy during the 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".