The Poetry of the Great War and Propaganda
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this thesis is to analyze some examples of First World War poetry regarding, on one hand, its function as propaganda and pro-war material, and on the other hand, its function as anti-war material. It demonstrates how the Great War influenced and challenged the poetic conventions of the period, but also how poetry influenced the war. The poets examined include Rudyard Kipling, Rupert Brooke, Jessie Pope, Robert Graves, Siegfried Sassoon, and Wilfred Owen. The first three of the six authors are the examples of pro-war poetry that illustrate some similar aspects of the pre-war and war poetry that is patriotic and that romanticizes the idea of war. Consequently, it is important to explore the concept of propaganda, and specifically, the occurrence of propaganda during the First World War through Peter Buitenhuis’s The Great War of Words: British, American, and Canadian Propaganda and Fiction, 1914-1933. Furthermore, various articles by authors such as Jo Fox, Alice Goldfarb Marquis and Anurag Jain will serve as a link between propaganda and literature. Meanwhile, the latter three authors are some of the more prominent authors of the Trench poetry, particularly, they are the representatives of the anti-war poetry after experiencing the horrors of the trenches. Moreover, Susanne Christine Puissant’s Irony and the Poetry of the First World War, Jon Silkin’s Out of Battle: The Poetry of the Great War, and David Punter’s Literature of Pity provide the theoretical framework for the analysis of the poems.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it