Globalism, Hegemonism and British Power: J. A. Hobson and Alfred Zimmern Reconsidered
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interpretations of British imperial history which highlight the role played in the decline of the British empire by misguided gestures of appeasement, and particularly by supercilious internal anti‐imperial critics, have recent been influentially restated within and outside of historical scholarship. Such analysis however is characterized by inadequate assessment of the nature of debate within Britain about the empire during key phases of history. This article considers the ideas of the leading intellectuals Alfred Eckhard Zimmern and John Atkinson Hobson as exemplars of opposed positions taken in that debate in the context of imperial Britain's global strength in the years before and at the start of the First World War. Within this debate, however, Zimmern and Hobson agreed on many fundamentals, not least on the significant potential for good possessed by British imperial power. This case study demonstrates that it is usually desirable for students of history to avoid analogical modes of argument in foreign policy by demonstrating the complexity of decision‐making therein. It also suggests, however, that internal dissent and weakness is likely to be less of a source of difficulty in the world's predominant power – even in one that frequently underpins international order – than is commonly assumed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".