MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743777173 · doi:10.1093/dh/dhx054

Integrating the Atlantic and Indian Oceans

2017· article· en· W2743777173 on OpenAlexaffabout
Douglas M. Peers

Bibliographic record

VenueDiplomatic History · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismEmpireHistoriographyInterdependenceQuarter (Canadian coin)PoliticsAtlantic WorldConsumption (sociology)Colonial ruleHistoryEconomic historyEconomyAncient historyPolitical economyGeographyPolitical scienceEconomicsArchaeologySociologyLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selling Empire is a fascinating foray into the entangled histories of consumption and production in India, colonial America, and Britain. We are shown the reasons for and consequences of the shift from an early three-way relationship marked by colonial rule in America and trade with independent states in India in the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth centuries, to trade with an independent America and colonial rule in India by the end of the period under review. The book is a compelling example of how we can transcend the common practice of treating economic and political relations as bilaterally configured by showing how the trading worlds of the Indian and Atlantic Oceans were not only interconnected but also interdependent. In so doing, Eacott provides ammunition against any remnants of the old Whig historiographical framework, which had argued that the British Empire in the Americas was transformed in the last quarter of the eighteenth century by a swing to the East. Implicit in this vision was that these were discrete and largely unrelated phenomena.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiplomatic HistorySame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207