MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617000288 · doi:10.1080/09670882.2017.1331507

<i>Legacy</i> ’s legacy: lessons for the Stormont House Agreement’s Oral History Archive

2017· article· en· W2617000288 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Side

Bibliographic record

VenueIrish Studies Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicOral History, Memory, Narrative Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingPoliticsSociologyEconomic JusticePeriod (music)Work (physics)Political sciencePublic relationsNarrativeMedia studiesPublic administrationLawAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I examine the BBC radio programme, Legacy. Broadcast each day during 1999, its explicit intention was to persuade Northern Ireland’s publics of the necessity of reconciliation. The programme, aired during the nascent post peace accord period, raised questions about the necessity of the region’s legacy of conflict. Based on an examination of audio and print transcripts of broadcasts, I demonstrate how Legacy’s ability to enact change was constrained by the programme’s format and its political climate. I identify and examine programmatic limitations, including a constrained model of public participation, wide-reaching expectations for storytelling as a model of community engagement and transitional justice, and parallel alignment that permitted the two communities to work alongside each other, rather than with each other. I argue that this cautious approach facilitated public discussions about the long-term effects of the conflict but did not facilitate wide-reaching, societal reconciliation efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.245
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.118 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrish Studies ReviewSame topicOral History, Memory, Narrative AnalysisFrench-language works237,207