Morale of Canadian censors during The Second World War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We often hear about how censorship is enacted during war in order to protect the morale of a country's citizens while preventing valuable information from being intercepted by the enemy. However, we never hear about the morale of the censors nor do we see written historical texts relating to the topic. Using the diaries and letters written by Captain Robbins Elliott who was a field press censor for the Canadian military during the Second World War, we can determine the state of his morale. Since this is an archival thesis, the first section contains a description of the documents belonging to Robbins Elliott beginning from his journey to Holland and ending with his research on various people and places. There is also an archival sketch of Elliott's life along with other access points that the reader may find of interest. The way that this finding aid is structured is consistent with The Rules for Archival Description (RAD). The second part discusses the historiography of Canadian censorship during the Second World War as well as both the press and military censorship systems. The archival records along with secondary research highlight what Elliott and other military censors thought about their duties and how some reacted to criticism of censorship. This section concludes that Elliott's morale remained intact as a censor throughout the war.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".