Scottish Gaelic Movement and Celtic Identity: <i>An Comunn Gaidhealach</i> at the Turn of the Twentieth Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Comunn Gaidhealach, as the main representative of the Scottish Gaelic Movement in the late nineteenth century, pursued the essential objectives of cultivating, teaching, and promoting Gaelic language, literature, music, and culture. Its members closely collaborated with their counterparts from other so-called Celtic countries, which subsequently resulted in the formation of other pan-Celtic institutions around 1900. The countries involved supported each other in achieving similar goals through common initiatives. This article explores the nature of Celtic connections through the study of the self-representation of the Gaelic language movement. It defines the most articulated topics for An Comunn Gaidhealach and identifies to what extent Celticism was part of the society’s self-representation. An Comunn Gaidhealach looked at the experience of other Celtic countries as a source of inspiration. While Celtic identity formed a negligible part of An Comunn Gaidhealach’s self-representation, a strong Celtic element was present in its discursive strategies and in the argumentation processes, both inspired by Welsh and Irish revivalist movements. The society defended Gaelic language rights, presented itself as a patron to Gaelic education, and organised the Mòd festival, all the while embracing all political and religious beliefs. The methodology of the research, inspired by Israeli sociologist Ruth Amossy, analyzes the discourse of An Deo-Gréine, the official magazine of An Comunn Gaidhealach. This perspective highlights how An Comunn Gaidhealach intended to be perceived, what discursive strategies it employed, and subsequently, how and to what extent there was a pan-Celtic aspect to its work. The results of the analysis are complemented by archival research. The conceptual framework of the study is embedded in comparative and transnational approaches to historical research. This approach is reflected in understanding the formation of collective identities from a perspective that transcends nation-states rather than focusing solely on a national context.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".