Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The recent political difficulties faced by the Scottish National Party have made the prospect of a future Scottish independence referendum less salient in both Westminster and Holyrood. However, whilst the short‐term prospects for the independence movement look challenging, the long‐term question of Scotland's future within the UK remains an important area of analysis for constitutional policy makers and scholars alike. This article seeks to add to the debate on the future of the UK's territorial constitution by arguing for the passage of a ‘Scottish Clarity Act’ by the UK government, which would outline the rules about when and how a future Scottish independence referendum should be conducted. Using the Canadian Clarity Act 2000 as an international example of the constitutionalising of secession, it argues that there are numerous benefits associated with providing greater clarity on Scotland's constitutional future, including the dampening of polarisation, the mitigation of constitutional crisis, the improvement of governance and the bolstering of democracy in the UK.
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 | 0.055 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".