Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his critique of my article Paul O'Leary brings his expertise on nineteenth-century Wales to bear on issues I raise. In doing so, he consolidates and complements certain areas of my original thesis. My aim was, after all, to highlight anti-Catholicism in twentieth-century Wales, rather than dismiss hostility a century earlier. In other areas, however, he misinterprets or misrepresents my article, largely because he fails to recognise the subtleties in the character and nature of Welsh anti-Catholicism over the two centuries. During the nineteenth century, there was undoubtedly a deep-seated hatred and fear of Roman Catholicism in Wales. Protestant dissent was, by its very nature and disposition, hostile to Rome. Anti-Catholicism was, therefore, endemic to Wales during this time and my work has never suggested otherwise. However, it is essential that the nuances in the different types of hostility, already touched upon in my initial article, be identified. The clear diversity between the form that anti-Catholicism took in the nineteenth century and the character it took a century later can then be compared and assessed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".