Robert Bruce's Bones: reputations, politics and identities in nineteenth-century Scotand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From introduction: In a recent survey of public opinion in Scotland, the figure of Robert Bruce, king of Scots (1306-29), was ranked third, with 12% of the vote, in a list of ‘most important Scots.’ Bruce thus posted, arguably quite predictably, behind, first, with 36%, William Wallace (c.1270-1305), the ‘people’s Champion’ of the Wars of Independence, and second, with 16%, bard and radical icon Robert Burns (1759-96).3 At first glance, these results chime in neatly with some of the political and media reaction to such surveys, often from Conservative quarters, which laments the apparent preference of the Scottish national character for romantic failures and lads o’ pairts with a democratic tinge (and preferably a dramatic early death) over and above any successful, authoritarian or upper-class role models of perhaps questionable political integrity.4 Such a collective reticence about Bruce or his type seems, too, to be echoed backwards in time: for example, in the public’s reluctance to subscribe to various campaigns in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to fund physical memorials to Bruce, efforts discussed in detail below. In the same period, the prose and verse fiction, drama and visual art which revisited the Wars of Independence almost always cast Bruce in the shadow of Wallace, often strikingly as a waverer (who as earl of Carrick in fact changed sides on at least five occasions during the Wars of Independence) and who had to be persuaded to the true patriotic cause by the words, deeds and sacrifice of the lesser hero knight.5
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".