“Northern Lights:” An Assessment of the Political and Economic Challenges Facing North East England in the Context of Greater Scottish Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on recent research on the Anglo-Scottish border, this article examines the social and economic impact of a more powerful Scotland on its “nearest neighbors” in the North East of England. In examining a series of competing narratives that shape how the significance of the Anglo-Scottish border and borderlands have been understood, the discussion begins by highlighting the longevity of a traditional conflictual narrative that a more powerful Scotland will undermine the North East’s economic fortunes. The article will further consider the strength of a competitive narrative by capturing how North East reactions to the independence referendum north of the border have been used as a springboard to argue for greater powers to be devolved to the North East itself— and has led directly to a new generation of “Devolution Deals” being offered by the UK Government to the English regions. Thirdly, the article will examine how the discursive space created by the referendum campaign (and outcome) has created the conditions within which a collaborative narrative—highlighting how Scotland and the North East of England have a shared history and common social and economic challenges—has emerged. The article will conclude by considering whether the emergence of a new cross-border relationship between the “Northern Lights” allows the Anglo-Scottish border to be conceptualized more as a “bridge” than a “barrier,” particularly given the UK’s recent decision to leave the EU.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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".