Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing in 1994 for the SHR, Morris and Morton's historiographical survey of modern Scotland was a tag-team grappling match with the gilded cage of the nation.They explored how historians had deployed the concept of nation when capturing the nineteenth-century past.They asked could, and should, national history be written through comparison with the historical development of England, reading off one nation against the other.For historians it seemed straightforward to assume that before our eyes lay the nation, standing unambiguously distinct from other nations.After all, nation, state and ethnicity bind the standard paradigm of narrative history. 1 Published at a time when the arguments against devolution were dissolving, their approach reflected the prevailing civic mobilisation of an historically specific reading of the democratic nation. 2 The authors observed the key survey literature: noting that Smout's Scottish people had swapped a History for a Century; it seemed a downgrading.Five years on, the Holyrood parliament opened to the strains of 'A man's a man for a' that' as the firm riposte from a galvanised civil society to a long mourned democratic deficit.Scotland had regained its parliament.For Devine in 1999 the container ship was again the Nation.With the title, might we ask, had nothing changed; had the cage of thinking automatically in terms of the nation been re-gilded? 3 Conceptually the 'nation' was a definite entity in the century from 1800.The rise of its political form dates to the three decades before the time period considered in this survey.The same era also witnessed the 1 R.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".