The British Jingo and the German Viking: the Emergence and Reception of the Colonial Hero Image of Cecil Rhodes and Carl Peters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Литература, наряду с официальными источниками, может дать представление о формировании культа двух одиозных деятелей колониальной эпохи – Сесила Родса и Карла Петерса. Их деятельность на африканском континенте, получившая неоднозначную оценку при жизни, впоследствии была переосмыслена официальной пропагандой, привела к изменению общественного мнения о колониализме и имперских ценностях. Африканское прошлое Империи в Великобритании вылилось в одну из форм протеста 2020 г., в то время как в Германии его пересмотр был связан с оценками национал-социализма, реанимировавшего идеи колониализма. The paper considers the colonial policy of Kaiser Germany and the British Empire in Africa via periodicals and fiction. Alongside with official sources, fiction can provide an insight into the way the cult of the two most notorious colonialists – Cecil John Rhodes and Carl Peters – emerged. Their activities in the African continent, cautiously assessed even in their lifetime, was reconsidered in official propaganda and by writers of the 19th-20th centuries, which led to the change in public opinion regarding colonialism and imperial values. The process of reconsidering went in different ways, however. The imperial past of the British Empire was shown in the protests of 2020 in the UK, whereas in Germany this reconsideration is closely connected with the reassessment of the Nazi period that attempted to revive colonial ideas of the first quarter of the 20th century.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".