'Beauty, Garlanded in Hell': The Tenacity of Cultural Christianity in First World War Britain and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than one hundred years after its conclusion, the collective trauma of the First World War is still felt by both individuals, and entire nations. During the war itself, and in the post-war world, there was a palpable desire to find meaning in the conflict, and in culturally Christian countries such as Britain and Canada, that culture was often used to frame the war experience. This framing was not solely dependent on personal belief or unbelief. Indeed, it was effectively employed both by individuals who questioned orthodox religious practices or resented figures of ecclesiastical authority, and those whose personal beliefs remained unshaken or who sought to maintain the status quo. First World War scholarship has traditionally dismissed the influence of religion on the war, but contemporary published and unpublished writings are indicative of the tenacity of the metaphors, tropes, and practices of a culturally Christian group of people, and these metaphors, tropes, and practices became a common idiom which allowed for greater communication between soldiers and civilians. In the same way, an examination of the use and impact of that cultural Christianity gives a far greater insight into the experiences of people during and after the war, than has previously been considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".