Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ‘new British history’ still has a great deal to offer when it comes to understanding the formation and conceptualization of British identity before the advent of the British state. This article focuses on the aftermath of the 1603 ‘union of crowns’ under James VI and I. Up to now it has been the consensus among historians that British identity was mostly limited to James himself and that he, rather clumsily, attempted to impose the idea of Britain on his unwilling subjects in England and Scotland. However, by paying more attention to the thoughts and aspirations about Britain, a different kind of British identity can be discerned. There were many individuals in both Scotland and England who believed that the union of crowns created one of the most powerful Protestant kingdoms in Europe. For these individuals British identity was a militant Protestant identity. They embraced the idea that Britain should be an active protector of Protestantism and that it should use this combined military might to extirpate the papal Antichrist. While the militant Protestant version of British identity was always a minority opinion, its existence reveals that there were alternative ways to thinking about Britain that did not necessarily originate with James VI and I, nor was it limited to or inhibited by traditional antagonisms between England and Scotland.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".