MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018047086 · doi:10.11575/prism/37708

The Date that Divides a Nation: Australia Day and the Clash of Narratives

2019· article· en· W3018047086 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hadi Slyman

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeHistoryGender studiesPolitical scienceMedia studiesGenealogySociologyLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Australia Day, celebrated on January 26th in every Australian state and territory, commemorates the day British sovereignty was first proclaimed over Australia. In cities and towns across the country, the raising of the flag and playing of the anthem mark the start of official programs. Local officials deliver sunny speeches before presenting civilian awards to citizens. These formal ceremonies are followed by outdoor concerts, barbeques and fireworks, all of which attract throngs of revelers. On the same day and in the same country, followers of another narrative mark the occasion differently. Tens of thousands gather and march in cities throughout the country, protesting what they call “Invasion Day”. These protesters see the day as a government whitewash, concealing the pain suffered by the original inhabitants and their descendants. The protests and boycotts of this loud minority of Australians will continue until an alternative is found, a move most Australians oppose. This policy problem can be seen as a clash of historical narratives, with policy and narrative both shaped by ideology. Conservatives and progressives often see the past through a different lens, with each distorted view justifying certain policies. By tracking the clash of narratives through the legislature and judiciary, the link between narrative and public policy becomes clear. The era in which history departments blatantly diminished or ignored Indigenous Australians ended half a century ago. This change was reflected in policy. As a new generation of academics conducted and published research supporting the Aboriginal narrative, Parliament and the judiciary responded. New legislation provided Indigenous peoples the opportunity to own ancestral lands; landmark court cases overturned terra nullius to acknowledge original sovereignty. The problem of how to tell the national story is common to a number of western democracies. Efforts to change Australia Day, rename a bridge in Canada or remove a statue in Texas are just a few examples. Examining the interweaving histories of policy, narrative and ideology can not only shed light on how Australia arrived at the current predicament; it can be helpful for any nation dealing with a colonial past.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and FederalismFrench-language works237,207