Scotland's Referendum and the Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 18 September 2014, a referendum took place in Scotland to determine the question of Scottish independence. Soon after, the independence issue recurred strongly as a topic in the UK general election of May 2015. This volume examines the media coverage of the referendum, analyzing how it was reported and structured in the media in Scotland, the wider United Kingdom, and in other parts of the world which had a direct interest in the outcome. In twenty chapters encompassing a rich variety of perspectives, scholars, commentators and journalists from Scotland, the rest of Britain, Europe, Canada and Australia examine how the media across the world presented the debate. By exploring how the media in their particular nations constructed coverage of the Scottish political debate, contributors from outside the UK illuminate a range of attitudes to nationalism and separatism in various countries which saw significance for themselves in the Scottish case. The book’s investigation of the shifting nature of Scottish – and British - identity thus revealed is thereby placed in an emphatically international context, alongside specific contributions from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland itself. The consequences of the referendum are traced in the media until the aftermath of the May general election of 2015.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".