Spain’s Fiesta Nacional in a Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
National day holidays are the key moments, ahead of any others, in the dramatic and visual presentation of identification with the past and with a shared project for the future. These dates are also a means of communicating to the world what are considered to be the qualities, essences and strengths of each nation. The political rituals deployed on such occasions help construct the myths that sustain nations. Through them states also appeal to the emotions of their citizens in order to get them to identify with the cultural references, locations and values alluded to in each case. The significance of these events differs from one country to another. Not all have the same status, nor are they staged in the same way, even though in each case they are identified with events and experiences from the respective national stories. For Spaniards, the commemoration of October 12 evokes references to the country’s influence in the Americas and nostalgia for empire as a foundational element of the national identity. Since there is no uniform model for such events, and in some instances a lack of consensus around them or tensions between them and other forms of celebration, a comparative approach is an ideal exercise for highlighting the exceptional features of Spain’s National Day holiday in an international context over the course of the twentieth century. The following analysis will contrast the Spanish case with those of the United Kingdom, Portugal, Norway, Italy, France, Germany, Ireland, the United States, and Canada (Total world count manuscript paper: 12319 words).
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".