Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uses of romance 'When we speak of the People, we ought carefully to make a Distinction between Irish and Irish .' The voice is not that of a stage-Irishman committing a blunder, but a cosmopolitan Englishman in William Chaigneau's novel, The History of Jack Connor (1752). He continues: 'that is, we ought to regard the Protestants of Ireland as ourselves, because, in Fact, they are our Brethren and our Children ; and so to manage the poor Natives, who are mostly Papists , that by Clemency and good Usage we may wean them from ill Habits, and make them faithful and useful Subjects'. Use of the adjective 'Irish' clearly required distinctions. There may be a huge gap between Irish and Irish, but none between Irish and English: Irish Protestants are different from poor Irish natives, but essentially the same as the English speaker of Chaigneau's text. Acts of positioning, literary and geographical, of readers as well as characters, are crucial to eighteenth-century Irish fiction. Often, those acts are complicated by the fact that they are also, as in the present instance, silently redrawing earlier demarcations, correcting previous distinctions between 'ourselves' and 'them'. Most eighteenth-century Irish fiction was produced by Irish Protestants, either the descendants of early Norman settlers (the Old English) or more recent arrivals. Yet the identity such writers shared determined neither their relationships with native culture - which ranged from the intimate to the remote - nor the strength of their attachment to the English mainland.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.022 |
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".