The USA as a «Significant Other» in the Context of the Nationalism Development in Colonial Canada and Australia in the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье мы отталкиваемся от ставшего уже классическим постулата Ф. Барта о конструирующей роли границ в формировании этнической и национальной идентичности. С этой точки зрения национальное самоопределение – это не столько продукт развития культурной самобытности того или иного сообщества, сколько результат рефлексии о «другом» или, выражаясь словами Ж. Лакана, конституирующим другом. Мы ставим целью доказать, что подобным же образом, происходило и развитие колониального национализма в Канаде и Австралии. В развитии национального дискурса для их интеллектуалов важнейшую роль сыграла идея наличия у канадцев и австралийцев коренных отличий от американцев – их «значимом другом». In the article, we base on F. Barth's postulate, which has already become a classic, about the constructive role of borders in the formation of ethnic and national identity. From this point of view, national self-determination is not so much a product of the development of the cultural identity of a particular community, but rather the result of reflection on the «other» or, in the words of J. Lacan, the constitutive other. We aim to prove that the development of colonial nationalism in Canada and Australia took place in a similar way. In the development of national discourse for their intellectuals, the idea that Canadians and Australians have fundamental differences from Americans, their «constituting other», played a crucial role.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".