One King, One Flag, One Empire: Canada, Imperial Defense Politics and Identity, 1900-1918
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Edwardian Era British and Canadian society and political circles fought a spirited battle about the nature of Canada's involvement and contributions to imperial defense. These debates were interconnected to other movements which were important during the late Victorian and Edwardian eras. The movements for imperial preference, tariff reform and imperial federation were the primary predecessors of the movement for greater defense unity in the period before World War I. Supporters of greater imperial defense cooperation in both Canada and in Great Britain used a language of "Britishness" to undergird their arguments. "Britishness" was used in various ways to develop an imperial identity that could be used to connect the far flung corners of the Empire. These included citizenship and Anglo-Saxon naval supremacy. Another major feature of this movement was its non-partisan and eclectic membership. One of the main ideologies developed by supporters of imperial defense cooperation was "National Efficiency." Efficiency was a new mode of organization for the British state that emphasized military preparedness as a reaction to British failures during the Second Boer War (1899-1902) These ideologies and languages of "Britishness" and "National Efficiency" did not go unchallenged. Henri Bourassa and the French Canadian Ligue Nationaliste Canadienne built their own ideology that opposed these imperialist impulses. French Canadian nationalist was primarily a rejection of centralization and of militarism based on the long history of British radical and liberal politics. Bourassa and the Ligue Nationaliste were squarely within the mainstream of British Liberal opinion in their opposition to the Second Boer War and of a naval buildup in the Edwardian Era.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".