MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949515389 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2018.0001

Commemoration by Committee: The National Wallace Monument

2018· article· en· W2949515389 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShort Stories in Global Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt historyBattleStyle (visual arts)George (robot)National monumentArtHistoryVisual artsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commemoration by Committee: The National Wallace Monument Ann Rigney (bio) Click for larger view View full resolution Fig. 1. National Wallace Monument, Abbey Craig, Stirling. From Charles Rogers, The Book of Wallace, vol. 1 (1889). The national Wallace Monument, Stirling, is visible from miles around. Built between 1861 and 1867, it takes the form of a medieval tower with an extruded stair turret and a crown spire (fig. 1). Standing on a rocky outcrop called the Abbey Craig, it overlooks the Forth River and the site where the English army was defeated in 1297 by Scottish forces led by William Wallace.1 The imposing building, built in a rather elegant version of the Scottish Baronial style, is itself a further sixty-seven metres high. It has been a popular tourist destination since 1867, and visitors (at least, those not wearing crinolines) have been able to climb the 246 steps to enjoy three superimposed rooms—in the original design, they are the Hall of Arms, the Hall of Heroes, and the Royal Chamber with Wallace’s sword on display—before stepping out onto the viewing platform at the top (MacInnes 36). The panorama that [End Page 1] meets the eye is stunning and confirms the logic of doing battle at such a strategic site on the threshold to the Highlands. Visitors nowadays can still enjoy the view, although presumably their knowledge, if any, of William Wallace has been shaped more by the film Braveheart (1995), starring Mel Gibson, than by Blind Harry’s poem “The Wallace” (c. 1488), Jane Porter’s novel The Scottish Chiefs (1810), or Robert Burns’s lyrics for the song “Scots Wha Hae” (1793), key points of reference for the nineteenth-century public (Crawford 42, 107–21). In its sheer size and ostensible dedication to a single national hero, the Wallace Monument seems to confirm the traditional understanding of nineteenth-century monumentality. Whether it is understood in Friedrich Nietzsche’s sense as the celebration of unquestioned truths and triumphs or in Andreas Huyssen’s sense of “monumental seduction” (Huyssen 30–48), monumentalism has usually been associated with a totalizing attempt to stabilize and unify memory: literally, to petrify it into a reduced form that permanently defines national histories and aspirations in a monolithic way, leaving nothing for the citizen to do but to stand in awe. On closer inspection, however, the National Wallace Monument challenges this standard view of monumentalism and offers a keyhole perspective on public cultures of commemoration. From this perspective, such cultures appear much more dynamic and fluctuating in practice than their colossal material relics now suggest and are much more subject to negotiation and the active participation of enthusiastic citizens on whose mobilization their erection depended. There are layers to this monument not immediately visible to the naked eye. To begin with, the absence of figuration on the monument is telling. While the architectural style clearly signals “Scottishness,” the building has no narrative or figurative elements except for the Wallace coat of arms above the entrance door and a single niche containing a statue of Wallace brandishing a sword (although part of John Thomas Rochead’s original design, this statue was only added in 1887 and, at four metres high, appears small relative to the building as a whole). Invisible to the eye but virtually present because knowable from other sources is an alternative design for the national tribute to Wallace: the monument that might have been built but was not. This was the design produced by J. Noël Paton in1859, consisting of a rampant Scottish lion standing triumphantly over the monster it was in the process of slaying. Although this more belligerent composition had been the initial winner of the architectural competition for the planned Wallace monument, it was subsequently rejected as being overtly anti-English rather than simply “national” (Coleman 55–56) and was replaced by the tower we see today. The monument’s location might also have been different. Unlike most national monuments in the nineteenth century, the Wallace Tower has a rural rather than an urban setting. The choice for Stirling was the outcome of a compromise. To be sure, the proximity to the battle site as...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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