:Imperial Connections: India in the Indian Ocean Arena, 1860–1920.<i>(The California World History Library, number 4.)</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking their cue, at least in part, from Fernand Braudel's pioneering work on the Mediterranean, historians such as Ashin Das Gupta, R. J. Barendse, Michael Pearson, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, K. N. Chaudhuri, and Sugata Bose (among others) have produced a clutch of works detailing the economic, cultural, political, and social forces that gave the Indian Ocean and its littoral an integrity and coherence that had been hitherto hidden from observers who had focused on the continents rather than the ocean that connected them. And in an ironic reproduction of the administrative boundaries that lay between the India Office and the Colonial Office, historians of colonial India, Southeast Asia, and Africa have tended to work in isolation from one another. More recently, historians of imperial Britain have grown restless with the longstanding tendency to conceptualize the British Empire as consisting of a series of distinct and distinctive bilateral relationships binding individual colonial territories to the imperial center in Britain. Drawing upon earlier studies of the Indian Ocean yet informed by recent efforts at rethinking imperial relationships, this book provides a refreshing and stimulating alternative in its depiction of the eastern British Empire as a web of interconnections, a matrix wherein British India often exerted the kinds of influence that until now would have previously been ascribed to the imperial center. As Thomas R. Metcalf elegantly puts it, “the Raj comprehended the sea as well as the land” (p. 9). By considering imperial history from the vantage point of the Indian Ocean, Metcalf suggests ways in which earlier efforts at mapping imperial power, namely the landward orientation of Halford Mackinder and his disciples and the seaborne focus of Alfred Thayer Mahan and his followers, can be reconciled.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".