MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744613606 · doi:10.1177/1470412917710826

Photographing Imperial Citizenship: The Colonial Office Visual Instruction Committee’s Lanternslide Lectures, 1900–1945

2017· article· en· W2744613606 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabrielle Moser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visual Culture · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and Design
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of CambridgeYork University
KeywordsEmpireCitizenshipColonialismReading (process)Government (linguistics)Visual cultureVisual artsBritish EmpireHistoryArtLawPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article traces one of the first attempts at photographing citizenship by examining some of the 7600 images produced for the Colonial Office Visual Instruction Committee’s lanternslide scheme, a series of geography lectures documenting the land and peoples of the British Empire that circulated in classrooms around the world between 1902 and 1945. This unusual government project brought together imperial propaganda and visual instruction to teach children what it meant to look and to feel like imperial citizens. The lectures on India, in particular, point to the speculative nature of COVIC’s project, which sought to predict which populations might pose a threat to the empire and how they might be safely managed and contained through colonial education. By reading COVIC’s photographs and texts against contemporaneous visual culture in the empire, the article analyses the inconsistencies in photographing imperial citizenship amongst the more recognizable visual categories of race, class and gender.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.343 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visual CultureSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207