Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Belonging to a well‐defined ethnic or national community can be a great source of individual and collective pride. This strong sense of satisfaction and positive self‐evaluation, as pride is commonly defined, can in turn motivate important social and political movements intent on furthering the interest of the ethnocultural group concerned. Those seeking independence from a larger political unit are among the most visible and widely discussed (prominent contemporary examples include, among many other cases, the nationalist movements in Quebec, Kurdistan, and Scotland) but many pursue different objectives: ethnonational “revival” movements, which usually seek to inject new life into a given culture (and its language, religion, or art) without necessarily pursuing full sovereignty; emancipatory movements, often organized by groups that have been the victims of long‐standing, extreme forms of racial oppression (the vast African diaspora is the primary example); nativist movements intent on homogenizing their society (by limiting immigration or by restricting the rights of minorities, two causes espoused by a number of political parties in Europe and in parts of Asia); extreme movements whose primary motivation is the elimination of those races perceived to be inferior and external to the dominant group (far right nationalist and “white pride” movements are examples).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".