Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper applies a levels of analysis approach to analyse and de-conflate the inconsistency in the historical and historiographical legacy of the Battle of Passchendaele between two levels: the operational level of war as conducted by Field Marshal Douglas Haig, General Officer Commanding (GOC) British Expeditionary Force (BEF); and at the tactical level of war as conducted by Lieutenant-General Sir Arthur Currie in command of the Canadian Corps. By applying the levels of analysis approach to delineate the strategic and operational from the tactical levels of war the paper confirms and accepts the common view that Passchendaele was a failure at the operational level of war. Haig’s operational concept of a deep advance and general breakthrough was not achieved. Fighting at the operational level of war, the BEF’s military strategic objectives were not achieved. Consequently, the historical and historiographical legacy of the campaign has been one of futility, waste, and callous indifference, which, unfortunately, has also conflated the historical and historiographical appraisals of the achievements of those formations and units of the BEF (such as the Canadian Corps) that had achieved success fighting at the tactical level of war. Through a particular focus on the performance of the Canadian Corps, this article has de-conflated this inconsistency. Henceforward, the Canadian Corps’ victory at Passchendaele deserves to be recognised as a significant tactical victory in line with the accomplishments of the Corps in previous and subsequent tactical victories such as Vimy Ridge and Hill 70 in 1917 and The Hundred Days in 1918.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".