Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the beginning of the 20th century Camillo Bellieni, one of the founders of the Sardinian Action Party (Partito Sardo d’Azione) wrote that Sardinia had been the victim of an unsolved paradox: despite having the geographical, historical, cultural and linguistic features that are typical of a nation, it had never managed to become a State. In previous centuries, Bellieni explains, this had happened because the Sardinian people had not been aware of their identity; now that they have achieved this awareness they have begun to think with an Italian intellect: Sardinia is therefore to be considered a “miscarried nation” (Bellieni, 1985). Camillo Bellieni and other important intellectuals and theorists of “the Sardinian movement” would begin with these considerations when criticising the centralist organisation of the Italian Kingdom and asking for the acknowledgement of an independent administration and legislation for Sardinia that would enhance Sardinian identity. The majority of the theorists of the Sardinian movement did not \nbelieve Sardinia should become an independent State separate from Italy, but that independence could be obtained by readjusting Italy as a federal state. The “Sardinian” theory in the first half of 1900, did not therefore develop separatist solutions, but made a persistent call for the creation of institutions that would allow Sardinia and its people self-governance. \nThe history of Sardinia’s autonomy in the 20th century revolves around key words like “federalism”, “identity”, “people”, “nation”; words that have been (to this day) inflected in the on-going financial and institutional claims made to the central State, in the search for solutions to the social and economic recession that, though in a reduced measure, still characterises Sardinia. It is probably due to this very conflictive relationship that independence proposals regularly appear, even recently, in the political \nand cultural world, promoting the separation of Sardinia from Italy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.130 | 0.045 |
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".