MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799641447 · doi:10.1080/00794236.2018.1460148

Minding the gaps: exploring the intersection of political economy, colonial ideologies and cultural practice in early modern Ireland

2018· article· en· W2799641447 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Audrey Horning

Bibliographic record

VenuePost-Medieval Archaeology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsIdeologyColonialismCapitalismScholarshipPoliticsPolitical economySettlement (finance)RhetoricPolitical scienceSociologyEconomyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Examinations of the imposition of colonial ideologies actualized through the mechanism of plantation, or enforced settlement, in Ireland often highlight plantation as a stark process that was founded upon, and thus fully accommodated to, a fully-fledged version of mercantile capitalism. Yet on the ground, engagements between peoples reveal that ideologies were incompletely applied, plantation plans seldom realized and new economic formulations incompletely rendered. On close examination, seemingly incompatible economic structures (Gaelic, Old English and incoming plantation) emerge as capable of mutation and accommodation, thus forcing a reconsideration of the rigid interpretations of the rise of capitalism in the early modern Atlantic that has typified scholarship in historical archaeology. The gaps between rhetoric and reality are considered, and a case made for how a more nuanced consideration of the intersections of culturally disparate political economies can yield a deeper understanding of colonial encounters and colonial settings.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.027
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePost-Medieval ArchaeologySame topicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207