Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report examines the case for the establishment of an honours system in Ireland. An honours system is a series of formalised awards given by the state. The report begins by examining the history of attempts to establish an honours system in Ireland and includes a discussion of the legal constitutional issues relating to such a system. It then identifies a range of different types of honours systems in different countries and finds that each of them has Irish counterparts. We then examine the kind of system, in generalised terms, that might be considered for Ireland. Following this we look at the specific cases of awards offered in the United Kingdom and Canada, going into the history and structure of awards in both countries to determine whether they offer any lessons for Ireland. Finally, the report returns to Ireland and offers recommendations on creating an Irish honour system based on international best practice. The report also provides a detailed appendix outlining the various awards offered by OECD countries, differing kinds of nomination forms and detailed graphics showing how an honour is awarded in various countries. The report first examines the history of the Irish case, through parliamentary debates and a number of constitutional reports. These reports found that there is no impediment in the Irish Constitution to establishing an honour system. We then outline a methodology for examining awards in an Irish context, where restricting the awards we examine to state awards alone is justified. The report notes that Ireland provides a wide range of awards informally, but that these do not have official state sanction. Nonetheless there are similarities between these awards and those provided by other countries. The report divides honours into four categories: civilian awards, exceptional merit awards, diplomatic awards and military awards. The report notes that there are multiple relevant Irish awards, but that nevertheless Ireland still lacks an honour that could show state recognition. The report also notes areas where this has caused problems for Ireland. The standard structure for awards in other OECD countries is also explored. The report then analyses award systems more generally. We suggest for Ireland an internal recognition system that is focused on the recognition of individuals for their achievements. Following the establishment of these general recommendations two case studies are chosen and examined. Both case studies offer policymakers similar lessons for the establishment of awards. Both Canada and Britain prioritised two particular areas – diversity and inclusiveness – and structured their award systems around these principles. In both cases pursuing these principles seems to have led to broad public support for the honours systems established. Finally, the report outlines policy recommendations for Ireland. Appendices available at http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/Honours_System_for_Ireland_Appendices.docx
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".