Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the start of the twentieth century the British Empire stretched over a quarter of the globe; its influence even further. Trade flowed, Britannia ruled the waves and all in all it seemed there was no limit to British ambitions. However, times were changing. Questions of a ethical nature were beginning to surface everywhere from the press to the pulpit. Competition from newly-industrialized Germany and America forced Britain to re-evaluate its approach to foreign rule and to win loyalties it had hitherto taken for granted. The time had come to earn its keep. In doing so, searching questions were asked about the nature of rule, the integrity of empire, how best to ensure its survival, and the true meaning of enlightened self-interest. Could a fundamental shake-up of human values and a new approach to humanity be enough to keep the wheels of industry turning, the profits rolling in and colonial discord to a minimum? Pause for reflection would mature an empire and enrich its narrative, but would this leave it vulnerable to attack and lead it ultimately down that path to self-liquidation? This inquiry sets out to uncover some of these questions from a era that simply won''t go away.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.011 |
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".