MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189411203 · doi:10.1353/cch.2015.0040

“The Indian’s Own Magna Carta”: Britishness and imperial citizenship in diasporic print culture, 1900–1914

2015· article· en· W2189411203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irina Spector-Marks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Colonialism and Colonial History · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBritishnessCitizenshipImmigrationLegislationColonialismLawHistorySociologyPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1914, the Vancouver paper The Hindustanee attacked Canadian immigration officials for violating Indians’ rights which were given to them “on the banks of the Runnymede” at the signing of the Magna Carta. This article contextualizes that claim by examining invocations of the Magna Carta as an integral part of Indians’ response to colonial anti-Asian legislation in the twentieth century. Imperial citizenship functioned for Indians as a Whitening device, offering by implication access to a package of values and rights that connoted Britishness. The racialized meanings of “imperial citizenship” emerged in a print culture that was simultaneously diasporic and imperial.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Colonialism and Colonial HistorySame topicHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207