MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789083327 · doi:10.1177/1473779518773642

Official status of languages in the United Kingdom and Ireland

2018· article· en· W2789083327 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daithí Mac Síthigh

Bibliographic record

VenueCommon Law World Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of British Isles
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsWelshParliamentLegislationCharterKingdomPolitical scienceIrishContext (archaeology)LawCLARITYOfficial languageDevolution (biology)SociologyGeographyLinguisticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What are the official languages of the United Kingdom and of Ireland? Constitutions typically provide a starting point, although the answer is clearer in the case of the latter than the former. Nonetheless, the adoption of language legislation by the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament, in respect of Welsh and Gaelic, forms part of a general shift towards official status within the UK; clarity in Northern Ireland, contemplated by the Belfast Agreement and St. Andrews Agreement, is further off. These changes also highlight an emerging story of the status of recognised languages at UK level. Meanwhile, the constitutional position in the Republic of Ireland has been supplemented by legislation and caselaw. This article considers the developing status of various languages (especially Welsh, Gaelic, and Irish) in the UK and Ireland, set in the context of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, issues of identity and territory, and the similarities and differences between laws on language within and across both states.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommon Law World ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies of British IslesFrench-language works237,207