MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W222607782 · doi:10.3138/cjh.46.1.63

“An issue that could tear us apart”: Race, Empire, and Economy in the British (Welfare) State, 1968

2011· article· en· W222607782 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationRacismOpposition (politics)Psychological nativismPolitical economyWelfare stateSociologyPoliticsPolitical scienceLawGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Literature on immigration and race relations in 1960s Britain has consistently emphasized legislation of this period as “racist” in intent. Insufficient attention has been paid to the deconstruction of the language surrounding anti-immigration sentiment. In the context of the 1968 Kenyan Asians crisis, Commonwealth Immigrants Act, and Race Relations Act, popular anti-immigrant sentiment was not couched in singularly definable terms of racism. However, much opposition to immigration was expressed in a manner that suggested a defensive and exclusive sense of British national identity, described in terms that reflected concerns about the appendages of the postwar welfare state. This language suggests that anti-immigration sentiment ought to be placed in a broader context of economic and socio-political decline in Britain, rather than read exclusively as an expression of some objectively definable notion of “racism.”

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.220 · 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