Bibliographic record
Abstract
British imperial administration in Africa and Asia has originally been characterized as “indirect rule,” but the concept of “indirect rule” has been faulted for several shortcomings, including its inadequacy in explaining relations between the limited number of European officials and the predominance of indigenous personnel in government. Recent research has rather identified political clientage as a suitable model for examining the structures and dynamics of British rule in the non-European world from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries. Clientage denotes a mutually beneficial relationship and solidarity between individuals or groups of unequal status and influence in society. It is characterized by dependency between a client and a patron, with varying command over resources and values. This system of cultivating relations of personal loyalty developed as a principle of political activity in many social formations. Clientage operation necessarily involved brokerage. As a medium for political interaction, clientage in indigenous hierarchies embodied agency and linkage between ruling élites and subjects. Accordingly, clientage involved political mediation, which required brokerage or intermediary service. Similarly, clientage in the colonial context essentially involved interaction between hierarchies of imperial rulers and those of the subordinate indigenous government. Mediation and brokerage between governing officials and indigenous rulers also constituted a vital element in imperial governance and administration.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".