Story of the 22nd Battalion, September 15th, 1916: The Capture of Courcelette
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editor’s note: The George Metcalf Archival Collection at the Canadian War Museum has a thick file of original materials related to the 22nd Battalion’s role in the battle of Courcelette including messages written by its commander, Lieutenant-Colonel T.L. Tremblay, and after action reports, many hand-written, by future Dominion Archivist Lieutenant-Colonel Gustav Lanctot. Nothing is known about the provenance of this file. It was in storage at the museum when, in 1971, serious efforts began to assemble disparate documentary materials into a proper archives collection. The file presents a splendid opportunity for someone to complete an in-depth account of the 22nd’s role in the battle.\nThe following narrative is included in the file. Neither its author nor the date that it was written is known. It is presented here to provides a taste of what is in the file and an idea of the ferocity of the fighting that the 22nd experienced at Courcelette.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".