Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Mau Mau rebellion surprised the British government in 1952 by its ferocity and its initial success. Although the expectation of a speedy suppression of what appeared to be primitive and atavistic groups without firearms was frustrated, law and order was restored by 1955/6. The duration and protracted effort of the counterinsurgency beg an evaluation of its influence on the fate of Kenya as a colony. Yet, decolonisation did not arrive until nearly a decade later. Hence, the contention over the possible effect of the Mau Mau on the British retreat from Kenya. In the discussion of Kenyan decolonisation, two main approaches can be detected. One, focuses on the processes in Kenyan society, the other on the British establishment. Within the first approach, opinion may range from the assertion that with decolonisation the Mau Mau won a belated victory to the statement that the nationalist struggle during the period of 1956-1963 constituted an alternative to the Mau Mau struggle. The other approach looks for factors influencing imperial decision-making. Most of the research on the London scene looks for general factors that shaped the wider process of decolonisation and devotes but little space to Kenya itself. The research dealing specifically with the decolonisation of Kenya is mostly a variation on
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".