Nationcraft and the Origins of Territory: Experiencing Romanía in the Medieval Empire of New Rome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The modernism debate in the historiography of nationhood and nationalism has fizzled out to a curious détente: the idea that nationhood and nationalism are unique to ‘modernity’ remains dominant, but ‘premodern’ fields continue to research ethnonational phenomena while largely avoiding the vocabulary. Compelling research continues to be produced on both sides of the pre/modern divide, but there is little cross-fertilization between the two. This article returns to the modernism debate, to argue for the utility of political economy as a mode of analysis able to address the dynamics of nationcraft across a range of times and places. The case study is the production and experience of national territory in the medieval empire of New Rome, traditionally termed Byzantium. Between the eighth and thirteenth centuries East Roman political economy produced a national territory known as Romanía, ‘Romanland’, experienced for the most part in terms strikingly similar to the ‘countries’ produced by contemporary nation-states, including a kind of patriotism. The implication, fleshed out with comparative suggestions in the conclusion, is that similarities and differences between the nationcraft of different times and places should be situated in political and economic motions, rather than a pre/modern binary.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it