Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book, like its predecessor, Traditional Gaelic Bagpiping, 1745-1945, was researched and written without any financial help from any institution.This slowed my inquiries a little and in a small number of instances precluded access.There is material held by the Public Record Office in London, for example, access to which meant hiring a local researcher, which was beyond my budget; a few texts to be found in Scotland were also all but unavailable to me in Judique, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.I hope, however, that if there are any slight wants, they are more than compensated by some of the obscurer works and field observations that did come to my attention.The research work is by no means finished on either side of the Atlantic, although the memories that are left, like the fund of lore, are fewer and more dilute than ever on both shores.All the translations from the original Gaelic, unless otherwise noted, are my own.I was very lucky to have settled in Cape Breton when there was still a strong echo of its rich musical past, when many of the older folk spoke English with delightfully measured Gaelic accents and phrases.I am grateful to many folk who allowed me gradually to dispel my ignorance without embarrassment.In Scotland I was accorded many highly efficient kindnesses and services from several members of the staff of the Scottish Record Office, the National Library in Edinburgh, the National Museums of Scotland, and many other institutions.I must mention the always kind and considerate help I had from Hugh Cheape at the old and new museums of antiquities in Edinburgh; from Roy Wentworth in Gairloch; from Tearlach MacFarlane, Glenfinnan, for help with local Moidart genealogies; from Dr J.N. Hills at the Scottish Record Office; and from Bridget MacKenzie, Dornoch, and Ann MacKinnon at the Clan Donald Land Trust.Mrs Jill Kelsey at the Royal Archives and Roderick Cannon helped with the answers to several queries.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.607 | 0.438 |
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".