Bibliographic record
Abstract
European Trade and Colonial Conquest is authored by Biplab Dasgupta, arenowned political and social activist from Calcutta who taught economics atCalcutta University and was a member of the Parliament of India for severalyears. He has authored many books on various aspects of India’s socioeconomicand political life in the post-independence era, such as the oil industry,the Naxalite movements, trends in Indian politics, labor issues and globalization,agrarian change and technology, rural change, urbanization, and migration.The present book primarily focuses on the evolution of Bengal’s economyand society over the precolonial period, beginning from prehistoric days.Even though there are writings on Bengal’s colonial history, we know verylittle about its precolonial past except for the names of kings, the chronologyof dynasties, and scattered references to urban settlements.Dasgupta shows a specific interest in highlighting the socioeconomichistory of the last two and half centuries, from Vasco de Gama’s journey toIndia in 1498 to the battle of Palashi in 1757. The author asserts that heexplores in detail the socioeconomic and political context of Bengal thatfacilitated the transfer of power to European hands, because historians generallyignore this rather quite long and critical period. He, therefore, commentsthat this is “less a book on pre-colonial Bengal” and more a book onEuropean trade and colonial conquest (p. vii). The book explains howEuropean commercial enterprise in Bengal gathered political power throughits control over trade and gradually transformed itself into a colonial power.Although the Mughals held political power during this period, the economicpower and control of the Indian Ocean trade routes were gradually slippinginto European hands.It is believed that Clive’s victory at the battle of Palashi led to the colonialconquest of Bengal. However, focusing on Bengal’s socioeconomic ...
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".