“An Unspeakable Crime”: Divisions in Halifax Press Opinion Toward the July Crisis and Outbreak of the First World War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than a century after the outbreak of the First World War, the perception of a monolithically enthusiastic public response to the war’s commencement has endured in the popular imagination. While scholars have produced a large corpus of works dissecting and refuting the myth of unchallenged war enthusiasm among European populations during the summer of 1914, there have been relatively few comparable challenges to the narrative in a Canadian context. By comparing the attitudes expressed by Halifax’s two most widely circulated daily newspapers—the Liberal-leaning Morning Chronicle and the Conservative-affiliated Halifax Morning Herald —between the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the British Empire’s first bloodletting at Mons, this article explores how initially divisive the popular press reaction was toward the possibility, and eventual reality, of Halifax’s participation in a major European War. Considering these divisions within the Halifax press as symptomatic of wider popular dissention of opinion, it is demonstrated how the Maritimes’ largest urban population was far from unanimous in their reaction to the July Crisis and the outbreak of the First World 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".