British Jurisdiction and Legal Protection of Non-Europeans in the Sultanate of Zanzibar, 1841–1888
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the problem of jurisdiction and protection over certain categories of the local population by the British Consulate in the independent Sultanate of Zanzibar. The minorities in question represented various ethno-religious backgrounds and enjoyed different social and economic statuses. They included the British Indian community, whose members belonged to the economic elite of the state and many of whom were British servants: employees of the British Consulate, as well as missions and private companies. The category also included freed slaves and Christian converts. The article examines the motives and conditions that stood behind British legal policies in Zanzibar. It argues that even if the consulate did run its own policy within the limits sketched by the imperial administration, the dynamics of this policy was set by the interaction between the consuls and the groups over which the British claimed jurisdiction. Although the clash of different legal norms and systems occurred as a result of legal pluralism, the real conflicts concerned the limits of British jurisdiction. This paper is based on research in the national archives of Zanzibar, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".