MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052914488 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2014.892690

Evading Colonial Authority. Rebels and Outlaws in the Borderlands of Dutch West Borneo 1850s–1920s

2014· article· en· W2052914488 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Eilenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismPolitical sciencePolitical economyAncient historyHistorySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Borderlands in Southeast Asia are frequently portrayed as being outside state influence, as zones of anarchy where identities are flexible, loyalties ephemeral and state authority largely avoided. Depicted by shifting state administrators as rebels and outlaws roaming the border hills the populations inhabiting these edges of states further seem especially resistant towards officialdom through their engagement in law-bending practices and a heightened sense of autonomy. This paper examines these dynamics as they unravel on the island of Borneo during the Dutch colonial administration in the mid-19th century and thus aims to contribute to the growing historiography of Southeast Asian borderlands and the more localized dynamics of state formation. By contrasting local Iban narratives and discourses with colonial records in the border regency of Boven-Kapoeas in Dutch West Borneo I show how renowned rebel leaders did their best to take advantage of the differing terms and conditions that colonial rule offered on either side of the border and thus openly challenged colonial state authority. The rebel defiance of colonial authority forced the colonial administrators to impose strict control along the Dutch and British border of Borneo. It is argued that the rebellions and consequent Dutch attempt to establish law and order, largely contributed to the territorial demarcation of the colonial state.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicAsian Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207