MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620828682 · doi:10.4000/books.pufr.5076

Paddywhacking and Mick-taking: Of Being on First-name Terms with the Irish Other

2008· book-chapter· en· W2620828682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James D. McCabe

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses universitaires François-Rabelais eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and cultural studies analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrishInscribed figureIdealismColonialismPrejudice (legal term)HistoryHabeas corpusGenealogySociologyLawLinguisticsPolitical scienceArchaeologyEpistemologyPhilosophyMathematicsConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paddy and Mick, the two quintessential Irish first names, have given rise to numerous words and expressions in the English language. As such, they are fine examples of antonomasia, but the extent and nature of their reuse set them apart within this stylistic figure. Indeed, Irish names have been targeted much more often than names denoting individuals from comparable minority cultures. Over many generations, in Britain and America notably, these two first names were liberally coined to designate and denigrate the hapless or strategic Other. Negative racial stereotyping, inspired principally by British colonial discourse and American republican idealism, constituted the main driving force, but anti-Irish prejudice was successfully exported to other English-speaking countries as well (Australia, Canada and New Zealand). All of the major Irish heterostereotypes have been inscribed into these lexicalised names. This paper traces the Othering of Paddy and Mick through their numerous linguistic modulations and examines the particular reasons for such consistent onomastic abuse.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses universitaires François-Rabelais eBooksSame topicLegal and cultural studies analysisFrench-language works237,207