Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1940, the British parliament passed the Colonial Development and Welfare Act (CDWA), which set the stage for African development after World War Two. The development side of the Act has received much scholarly attention, especially due to its connection to Britain’s attempt to exploit African resources after 1945. The welfare side has been covered less well, despite its influence on the growth of colonial welfarist initiatives. In the Gold Coast (colonial Ghana), these programs dated from 1944 with the formation of the nucleus of a Social Welfare Department. My paper will focus on the resulting welfare programs, with a particular emphasis on disability. In so doing, I will examine the ways in which the colonial state’s disability initiatives fit into the British conception of welfare, within the larger context of the CDWA. The paper addresses research frontiers in African history in its dual focus on welfare and disability, neither of which has received adequate scholarly attention. The paper also addresses the influence of British policies towards disabled war veterans on colonial practices in West Africa. Viewed through this lens, the paper argues that ‘welfare’ acted as a cloak for the economic reintegration of disabled Africans into colonial labor markets.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".