Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines the Junior Orange Movement, a neglected aspect in the history of Orangeism. This chapter argues that the Junior Orange Movement provided both hope and lost opportunity for the Orange Order as a whole. The chapter follows a four-part structure: origins, growth, continuity, and decline. It begins with the origins of the Junior Orange Movement, situating the emergence of juniors in the context of other children’s organisations in the nineteenth century. Often the establishment of the Juniors was contingent on the support of Grand Masters or those who had previous experience in setting up Juniors. The growth and continuity of the Junior Orange Movement is shown to have occurred with the assistance of the Ladies Lodges, particularly in Canada and Scotland. This chapter also argues for a transnational influence across the Orange world not just in its formation but the continuance of the Junior lodges. A common theme throughout the world of Orangeism has been the benefit of Juniors in bolstering membership and later leadership of adult lodges. However, the prevalent negative aspect has been the lack of support for the Juniors by adult members. This chapter argues the Orange Order lost an opportunity to sustain their organisation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".