MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aftermaths: Walter Scott and Imagining Collective Memory in the Transatlantic World

2020· book-chapter· en· W3164765343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kenneth McNeil

Bibliographic record

VenueEdinburgh University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective memoryMnemonicContext (archaeology)HistoryEvocationArt historyArtLiteraturePhilosophyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first chapter examines the phenomenal rise to popularity of Walter Scott’s historical fiction throughout the transatlantic world, in the context of its evocation of collective memory, which was particularly suited to the anxieties of emergent national cultures. In Waverley, Scott employs mnemonic tropes to install a particular mode of modern historical consciousness: the ‘aftermath’, in which the present time is shaped in terms of its proximate relation (measured out in one or two human lifespans) to a moment of historical crux. The time of the Forty-Five is imagined as the catalyst for abrupt and transformational social and cultural change, which not only determined the nation’s present but altered the very pace of history. This chapter shows how Waverley’s example of the ‘aftermath’ provided tropes, models and theoretical frameworks for North American writers for their own expression of national memory. Examples include Washington Irving’s ‘Rip Van Winkle’, John Neal’s Seventy-Six, and Philippe-Joseph Aubert de Gaspé’s Les Anciens Canadiens. The chapter also traces the literary development of the ‘aftermath’ in the Scottish ‘memorial’ writing of Robert Chambers and Henry Cockburn.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdinburgh University Press eBooksSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207