The Irish Language in post-agreement Northern Ireland : Moving out of conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis enquires whether the Irish language can be removed from discourses of conflict in post-Agreement Northern Ireland. Following an inter-disciplinary examination of the relation between language and the 'national' community, emphasis will be placed on deconstructing the binary of ethnopolitical conflict within which Irish has been framed. Considering that linguistic recognition has been conferred through the Good Friday Agreement (1998), language policy in Northern Ireland must be seen as a type of conflict management. Northern Ireland's transition from conflict will be analysed in terms of political stability through renewed powersharing, a more peaceful society and sociocultural pluralisation beyond the so-called 'two communities'. This period of reconstruction emphasises skills and equality to which language and cultural recognition are key. Utilising original qualitative and quantitative data, this author will present two studies in which the Irish language may be conceived outside of the conflict-management framework. Research undertaken for the comprehensive Northern Ireland Languages Strategy (NILS) reveals a high level of public support for generally increasing language skills in Northern Ireland, alongside mixed responses to the role of Irish. A primary case study on Irish language learners in Canada will then demonstrate the global and multi cultural significance of Irish, highlighting the porosity of physical and cultural borders that discourses of conflict eschew. Government reluctance to view the Irish language as a legitimate skill and matter for the equality agenda continues to shape policy and debate. This continuing form of conflict is inconsistent with the relative success of the democratic process, as well as with the developing Celtic language regimes elsewhere. In response, this author will examine a deliberative democratic forum for language planning in Northern Ireland. This thesis thus contributes to the fields of minority language planning and democratic theory by viewing them as mutually reinforcing in Northern Ireland's transition from conflict.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".