MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129646715 · doi:10.1353/vpr.2020.0047

Press Conflicts, Empire, and the “Closed” Periodical: Sri Aurobindo Ghose (1872–1950) and the Indian Press

2020· article· en· W3129646715 on OpenAlex
Julie Codell

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonial History and Postcolonial Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpirePoliticsColonialismAudience measurementSpiritualityIndian cultureTemporalityDiversity (politics)Construct (python library)HistoryIdentity (music)SociologyPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceAnthropologyAncient historyAestheticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay examines anti-colonial writings of radical journalist Aurobindo Ghose (1872–1950), who edited and published several periodicals between 1893 and 1921 that shaped the modern Indian press. I discuss his changing political discourses over four periodicals, at first hostile to Britain and in fierce disputes with other periodicals, then ultimately arguing that Indians construct a modern national identity apart from Britain from their pre-European history, spirituality, and culture. Considering Margaret Beetham’s comments on periodicals’ temporality, ties to readership, and generic polymorphous diversity, I suggest that political periodicals under colonialism were necessarily “closed” and resistant to diverse opinions under the stresses of empire, creating a distinct periodical culture.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.266 · 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