India's ambivalent Anglosphere identity and the politics of international uranium sales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of the ‘Anglosphere’ has grown in political discourse in the past decade, though exactly what defines this space is contested. James Bennett has defined it as a group of states who are tied together on the basis of shared tradition, laws, liberty and language, yet does not discuss India and places it firmly on the outside of his hierarchy. Srdjan Vucetic has critiqued such approaches, arguing that the Anglosphere is based on a racialized identity, accounting for why India has largely been excluded. This paper uses the issue of uranium sales to investigate the extent to which India identifies with the Anglosphere, how it is perceived within this space, and how this ideational issue has shaped India’s postcolonial relationships with actors more comfortable with an Anglosphere identity. Whether or not to trust India with nuclear material has been mulled over by the UK, the US, Australia and Canada since India first showed interest in developing nuclear power plants, whilst refusing to sign NPT. All have now begun engaging with India as legitimate nuclear power. It is argued that India holds an ambivalent Anglosphere identity which has been emphasized on matters of nuclear cooperation and that this has enabled the recent growth in India-Anglosphere relations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".