A.J. Macdonald, <i>Border Bloodshed: Scotland, England and France at War, 1369-1403</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
istorians have traditionally portrayed the border lands of late medieval England and Scotland as hopelessly ungovernable regions of their respective kingdoms.Perceptions of chaotic raids and counter-raids, of the machinations of families constantly at feud, and of widespread lawlessness first began to inform the historiography of the borders in the sixteenth century, and until recently have remained remarkably persistent in scholarly and popular writing.In this work, a recasting of his doctoral dissertation, Alastair Macdonald sets out to debunk many of the myths that have so deeply coloured the history of the border lands.Although in some respects a dense and, at times, impenetrable book, Macdonald's effort is commendable for its attention to detail and its thorough assessment of surviving record materials.Macdonald pursues a single, well-articulated theme throughout the book.He argues that, despite the enduring opinion of some historians, Anglo-Scottish warfare in the period between the accession of King Robert II in 1371 and the year 1403 'was absolutely driven by the Scots' (p. 1).Related to this central claim are challenges to two equally persistent beliefs about the border lands of England and Scotland, namely that the disorder of the region was a reflection of the evils of overmighty subjects and that it was a consequence of the inability of the central governments of the two realms to control feuding among magnate families.Macdonald's view is that both arguments are seriously weakened when the 'bigger picture' is taken into account.Thus, he explores the involvement of the
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".