The First ‘British’ Colony in the Americas: Inter-kingdom Cooperation and Stuart-British Ideology in the Colonisation of Newfoundland, 1616–1640
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accession of James VI, the Stewart (or Stuart) King of Scots, to the thrones of England and Ireland in 1603 renewed debates about ‘Britishness’. Many of the king’s attempts to popularise and codify his version of the concept were unsuccessful. His vision for closer political union between England and Scotland did not come to pass until 1707 and most historians attribute the formation of British identity to the eighteenth century. Most influentially, Linda Colley has argued that British identity was forged in the crucible of eighteenth-century empire-building as English, Scottish, and Welsh people lived, worked, and fought together across the globe in defence of shared values. English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish people and interests likewise coalesced in the pursuit of empire in the early seventeenth century. They cooperated in attempts to colonise Newfoundland and explicitly promoted the project as British. The Newfoundland example shows that James’ British vision had some success. This article examines the project’s ‘Britishness’ and argues that the 1603 union of the crowns’ role in the formation of British identity and its impact on overseas expansion requires additional attention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".