Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several months before the 2014 independence referendum, Scottish Education Secretary, Mike Russell, described UK immigration policy as ‘driven by UKIP and by a nasty xenophobia which … revolts me’ (BBC News 2014). His comments exemplified a common practice of Scottish political leaders of distinguishing what they argue to be an open and inclusionary ‘Scottish approach’ to immigrants and diversity from increasing restrictionism in the United Kingdom. Much later than their counterparts in Quebec and Flanders, Scottish political leaders have recently begun to grapple with the question of how to respond to growing ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity of the population ‘north of the border’. They have also considered whether, and how, the politics of immigration relates to the politics of multinationalism in the multilevel state. Despite the long history of immigration in the United Kingdom, immigration and ‘visible’ diversity are more recent phenomena in Scotland. Moreover, under devolution Scotland has occupied a relatively weak position in terms of both its general constitutional power and its specific capacity to govern immigration, migrant integration and diversity. These factors, taken alongside the non-linguistic basis of Scottish substate nationalism, make Scotland a distinctive setting in the analysis of how substate political leaders respond to questions of immigration and migrant integration. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".