Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the early twentieth century the idea of imperial federation was revived by Lionel Curtis, the founder of the Round Table group. However, Curtis did not succeed in generating much support in the settler Dominions (which were central to his schemes) for either an imperial parliament or an imperial cabinet. Curtis's failure has often been interpreted as proof of an inevitable clash between British ‘imperialism’ and the ‘nationalism’ that was emerging in the Dominions at this time. However, it may be better understood as a reflection of the strength of a narrower, ‘patriotic’ determination in the Dominions to protect the autonomy of local state structures. ‘Britannic nationalist’ sentiment in the Dominions (which emphasised the existence of a community of culture encompassing Britain and the Dominions) was meanwhile far from opposed to other forms of closer imperial unity, forms that did not challenge the autonomy of member states. This claim is supported by an analysis of Canadian responses both to Curtis's schemes and to the alternative ideas championed by Richard Jebb, a British writer on imperial relations. Jebb developed a network of alliances with like-minded Britannic nationalists in Canada, and discussed with them how local autonomy could best be reconciled with the need for imperial co-operation. Examining the interaction between Jebb's ideas and those of Canadian thinkers such as Arthur Hawkes, John A. Cooper, J. W. Dafoe, and, most importantly, the Ottawa lawyer and constitutional expert John S. Ewart, helps show the true significance of the failure of Curtis's schemes, and reveals underlying continuities between pre- and post-First World War debates about imperial consultation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".