Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most interpretations stress a qualitative shift in colonial policy at the end of World War II, reflecting a major reorientation of outlook towards development, welfare and ultimately independence. There are, however, continuities before and after the war that call for a shift of emphasis. Because the British Solomon Islands Protectorate is conventionally represented as an extreme case of backwardness and severity before the war, it should present the putative contrast sharply. On the contrary, the pre-war administration field staff had aspirations for a more progressive regime, but these were thwarted by the protectorate's poverty and were shelved by the eruption of the war. The war-time destruction prompted administrators to consider afresh the problems of colonial development, coinciding with Colonial Office demands for post-war development submissions. Proposals proved too ambitious for the limited imperial purse, but even the attenuated plans proved unrealistic given the acute shortages of material and human resources. Thus, while ‘post-war thinking’ began well before the war, the era of ‘post-war development’ could not properly begin until several years after the end of the war.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".