MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Ideologies of Colonization

2010· reference-entry· en· W2790890516 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyIndigenousPoliticsCivilizationPower (physics)Political economyPolitical scienceBelligerentSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Envisioning, executing, and explaining colonization in the Atlantic world was a complex process for European and American intellectuals, who were often called upon to justify these actions both domestically and to the wider Atlantic community. As a result, several ideologies—or core intellectual ideas that focused goals, expectations, and actions—impacted European expansion into, and subsequent engagement with, the Atlantic world. Certain fundamental ideologies were shared, though not equally, by most of the European Atlantic powers. These included the intellectual desires to bring about Christian conversion and “civilization” among indigenous peoples; to utilize legal and political dialogue to justify their actions; to expand the territorial size of their states through colonization or conquest; improve national economic, political, and imperial power, especially vis-à-vis other competing European states; and to learn about the unknown parts of the world and its peoples and then determine how this new knowledge altered the world picture. Each nation also developed somewhat specific ideologies, both because of contemporary national perceptions that were not necessarily of interest to other nations, and as a direct challenge to the ideological justifications used by other European Atlantic powers. As a counterpoise to the Iberian ideology of belligerent conquest, for example, which was informed by their experiences with the Reconquista, the northern powers of Britain, France, and the Netherlands argued (though not without exception) for a more peaceful and benign method of colonization. In the process of this ideological debate, the northern powers tended to emphasize their desire for land, trade, and peaceful relations with the native population, rather than the subjugation of indigenous peoples. In turn, this land- and commodity-based ideology informed new economic policies and different attitudes toward native peoples and African slaves. Likewise, Protestant nations such as Britain and the Netherlands often argued for the importance of an ideology of liberty (of person and conscience), self-government, and private enterprise, as opposed to the more rigorous uniformity of religion and state that characterized the Catholic powers of France, Portugal, and Spain. As the subject of Atlantic ideology is a very large and complex one, this entry focuses on some general ideologies of colonization, while other entries should be consulted for more detailed treatment of individual themes (such as economic, religious, and racial ideologies, as well as the ideologies of liberty and republicanism.)

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.037
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→