MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124478089 · doi:10.3138/flor.25.007

Local Society and the Defence of the English Frontier in Fifteenth-Century Scotland: The War Measures of 1482

2008· article· en· W2124478089 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jackson W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of British Isles
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierNobilityFifteenthDiplomacyHistoryOffensivePoliticsLawPolitical scienceEconomic historyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a growing body of research on political society in late medieval Scotland, and on Anglo-Scottish war, truce, and frontier administration, exactly how local border society responded to the threat of warfare with England is not well understood. Source materials lend themselves to analysis of the military careers of great magnate dynasties, but not to an investigation of the roles performed by the lesser nobility of the borderlands whose fortified residences offered the first line of national defence, and who constituted that social group which conveyed royal and magnate power in the localities. The late medieval Anglo-Scottish frontier is the subject of two outstanding recent monographs. In 1998, Cynthia Neville examined the development of international border or ‘march’ law, illuminating the judicial role of those royal officials known as wardens of the march and truce conservators and the influence on law and on administration of Anglo-Scottish diplomacy from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. Whereas Neville expanded on the legal dimensions of the region’s history, especially from an English governmental perspective, in 2000 Alastair J.Macdonald adopted a Scottish governmental perspective to explain Anglo-Scottish warfare in the late fourteenth century. Macdonald shows how Anglo-French conflict allowed the Scottish Crown to pursue a concerted offensive foreign policy towards England, drawing on wide national participation and relying on cooperation between Crown and nobility in military campaigns. These studies are by no means alone in their concern with the late medieval Anglo-Scottish frontier, and other work has tended to focus on warfare, usually from the English viewpoint and mostly concerned with the fourteenth century. This paper offers an examination of the role of the lesser nobility in Scottish defensive arrangements in the later fifteenth century, when Scotland faced an English neighbour which was now mostly shorn of its military preoccupations in France. The Scottish realm was no longer able to sustain the sort of offensive strategy apparent in the period studied by Macdonald; territory formerly lost to English control had now been reconquered, and there was far more security to be had in courting peace. Apart from exploiting English civil strife in the 1460s (thereby regaining Roxburgh and Berwick-upon-Tweed), Scotland reverted to an overall strategy of avoiding major military engagements which in some ways resembled that of the early fourteenth century. Yet open war was to come again, and a new generation of leaders had to face the old problem how the Scottish-controlled border zone, now restored to its pre-1296 dimensions, was to be defended against major invasion. The following study pays close attention to the preparations for hostilities with England in 1482, the conflict which is best known for the arrest of James III at Lauder and for the final loss of Berwick to English control. The relatively detailed evidence brings into clear view the local and regional networks of power by which Scottish marchers governed and defended themselves and by which a ‘periphery’ — albeit not a remote one — was linked directly to the political ‘core’ of the kingdom.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorilegiumSame topicHistorical Studies of British IslesFrench-language works237,207