Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Scottish Referendum and its aftermath, viewed from national and international perspectives Read an article by David Hutchison about the book on allmediascotland.com After the Referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country in September 2014 ¬‒ and following a momentous mobilisation of voters by both the Yes and No campaigns ‒ Scotland's political environment has been fundamentally energised. But how was the Referendum campaign reported and structured in the media in Scotland, the wider United Kingdom, and in other parts of the world, and when might ‘representation’ have turned into ‘construction’? In this book scholars, commentators and journalists from Britain, Europe, Canada and Australia examine how the media across the world presented the debate itself and the shifting nature of Scottish ‒ and British ‒ identity which that debate revealed. Several of the contributors also explore how the emphases and interpretations placed on the Scottish debate by their national media illuminate attitudes to their own nationalism and separatism questions. The consequences of the No majority vote are traced in the media through until the SNP landslide in the UK general election of 2015. The issues which have subsequently come to the fore will be relevant for years to come. Contributors Neil Blain, University of Stirling Margot Buchanan, University of Stirling Catherine Côté, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec Enric Castelló, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona Marina Dekavalla, University of Stirling Peter Golding, Northumbria University John Harris, Glasgow Caledonian University Gerry Hassan is a writer, researcher and commentator David Hutchison, Glasgow Caledonian University Anthea Irwin, University of Ulster Brian McNair, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane James Mitchell, University of Edinburgh Klaus Peter Müller, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz Hugh O’Donnell, Glasgow Caledonian University Sian Powell, Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies Didier Revest, Université Nice Sophia Antipolis Kevin Rafter, Dublin City University John Robertson, University of the West of Scotland Fiona Skillen, Glasgow Caledonian University Fernando León-Solís, University of the West of Scotland Andrew Tolson, University of Leicester Christopher Waddell, Carleton University, Ottawa Karen Williamson, Northumbria University "
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".