Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1916, a representative from the Imperial Munitions Board announced to a gathering of women at Massey Hall in downtown Toronto that women were to be recruited to munitions factories. The intention from the Board and from the Canadian government was to dilute the masculine labour force with unskilled female labourers in order to allow the largest possible number of able-bodied men to enlist for deployment overseas. Hundreds of women from a wide array of backgrounds answered the call, efficiently and effectively building weapons, aircraft and ships for the war effort. Factory Girls explores the lives and motives of ten such women who take up employment in a fictional factory in Toronto. Members of the leisure class join working girls as they navigate a newfound sense of freedom and agency against a background of increasingly violent nationalism, imperialism and xenophobia. As the pressures of war build and what is normal becomes increasingly strange, aspects of absurdity pop up in both the lives of these women and in the telling of their stories. Factory Girls explores the question of what it means to make a bomb in the context of these women’s diverse economic, social and ideological backgrounds.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".