Great War Profiteering, Patriotism, and the Democratic Revolt in English Canada, 1914 to 1922
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canadian Great War historiography, the late-war and post-WWI revolt has remained a conspicuous subject for exploring regional and class conflict. This dissertation examines the revolt with a new analytical perspective centred on patriotism and profiteering. \n\nThe first section of this study constructs a cultural framework called Great War culture. Based on the limitations of the state, it became necessary to militarize socialization so that a major war effort could be undertaken. Through this process, Canada experienced a war-centric cultural shift, whereby social and political belonging became premised on patriotic identity. The term profiteering emerged as part of the war-centric lexicon to designate those who were disregarding patriotic sensibilities and selfishly exploiting the war for profit.\n\nThe second section of this dissertation examines three major interpretations of Great War profiteering between 1914 and 1918: war profiteering, food profiteering, and alien profiteering. It provides an understanding of each controversy through the perspective of federal politicians and state officials; leaders in the labour, farmers, and veterans movements; and ordinary patriots in English Canada. It argues that Bordens administration failed to curb patriotic outrage and disillusionment, setting the stage for explosive post-war militancy and unrest.\n\nThe final section examines how workers, farmers, and veterans drew upon the legitimacy of the Great War as a struggle for democracy to challenge the terms of post-war reconstruction. As this section explores, patriots undertook this revolt by using direct action involving violence and industrial militancy. They also used political action to challenge party politics, which some believed to be a root cause of the profiteering evil.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".