MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994019697 · doi:10.1163/15700658-12342354

Piracy in Asian Waters Part 2: Piracy, Sovereignty, and the Early Modern Asian State—An Introduction

2013· article· en· W1994019697 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian R. Prange, Robert J. Antony

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Early Modern History · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Maritime and Colonial Histories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyIndigenousPoliticsState (computer science)EmpirePolitical scienceAsian studiesSpace (punctuation)Political economyEconomyHistoryLawSociologyEconomicsChinaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This is the second of a two-part special issue on piracy in Asian waters. Part 1 (vol. 16, no. 6) explored the social and economic dynamics of pan-Asian piracy, and here in Part 2, contributors delve into the political dimensions of piracy by focusing on its interrelationship with notions of sovereignty, the changing nature of states in early modern Asia, and the rise of global seaborne empires. The four articles here challenge the conventional wisdom that Asian waters were great voids in indigenous political imagination and that Asian polities never regulated maritime space before the arrival of the West. Piracy played a significant role in the intense economic rivalries and competing political claims over sovereignty, not just between Western imperial powers but also among indigenous polities. Maritime space, therefore, was actively contested by both European powers and by various Asian states. In this contestation the early modern Asian pirate served as both instrument and contender of nascent projects of empire-building and sovereignty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Early Modern HistorySame topicGlobal Maritime and Colonial HistoriesFrench-language works237,207