âFor extraordinary heroism and outstanding performanceâ: Kayâyong, 2 PPCLI and the Controversy surrounding the US Presidential Unit Citation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a growing historiography, the Canadian experience in Korea is still a very much forgotten part of our history. Kap’yong, the marathon battle of 22–25 April 1951 where the Second Battalion of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (22PLCI) along with their fellow members of the 27th Commonwealth Infantry Brigade, the Third Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR) defended the access points of the Kap’yong River valley is the one incident receives significant attention. Without fail, the description of the battle always ends with that passing reference, “for their efforts 2PPCLI were awarded the United States Presidential Unit Citation.” This brief sentence at the end of a chapter does little to define the citation let alone explore its journey from recommendation to its place as a device on the uniforms of members of 2PPCLI. While the battle itself was epic in the context of Korea, the story of the Presidential Unit Citation was not without its own lengthy ordeal. The award was first recommended in the spring of 1951. However, the Canadian government did not officially announce that members of the Battalion would be able to wear the individual insignia of the citation until April 1956, a period of some five years.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".