Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of a Scottish parliament was, in many regards, the most important constitutional change in the United Kingdom since the Anglo-Irish Act of 1921. Given the stewardship of Tony Blair, Scottish independence was always unlikely; however, are prospects for secession any different under new leadership? Under Gordon Brown, a Scotsman, the nationalist sentiment in Scotland is not likely to rise. However, given the new devolved parliament, the desire for Scottish independence may increase under a staunchly English or conservative leader possibly in the mould of David Cameron. This is all the more possible given a YouGov poll1 in September which suggested that a majority of Scots backed independence over the status quo. While there is still a long way to go before Scottish secession, it is more plausible with a parliament. A referendum on independence is also possible citing the example of Quebec in Canada and would only require the Scottish National Party (SNP) to gain power in the Scottish parliament. A 50% plus one vote would then provide legal grounds to dissolve the 1707 Act of Union. If, in fact, the Scottish desire for independence is realized, does this change Blair’s legacy? John Major once warned against devolution calling it, “the Trojan horse to independence”. An independent Scotland would allow Scots the opportunity for representation at the United Nations and the European Union. Until now, Scotland has only known representation on the world stage via football and rugby pitches. Will this change after Blair leaves Number 10 Downing Street?
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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".