Colin Barr. <i>Ireland’s Empire: The Roman Catholic Church in the English-Speaking World, 1829–1914</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout much of the English-speaking world, for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the words “Irish” and “Catholic” were practically synonymous, and yet historians have lacked a clear answer as to why this was. While most Irish Protestants migrants—beyond the “Scotch-Irish” of the southern United States—evolved from being “Irish” and “Protestant” to merely “Canadian” or “Australian,” Irish Catholics maintained a strong dual identity. Many theories have sought to explain the phenomenon. Some say it lies in the timing or sheer numbers of those Irish Catholics who migrated abroad. Others have suggested it was their shared sense of oppression that kept them together. Still others point to the role of political leaders in binding them as a constituency. There is undoubtedly some truth to all these theories, yet none have been articulated in a single argument supported by primary source evidence. In his excellent new book, Ireland’s Empire: The Roman Catholic Church in the English-Speaking World, 1829–1914, Colin Barr offers one, clear answer: the Roman Catholic Church itself. In Catholic communities all over the world, Irish bishops, priests, and nuns built what Barr calls a “Hiberno-Roman” institution, which “emphasized loyalty to both the papacy and to Ireland, encouraged Irish symbolism and Roman devotions, and insisted on communal cohesion and social separation, especially in education and matrimony” (18). In what Barr admits is a very top-down approach to understanding religion and identity, the book argues that the church’s hierarchy created a sociotheological framework for understanding the world, which ensured that the twin identities of “Irish” and “Catholic” were nurtured and protected with iron discipline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".