Distort, Deflect, Deny: Appraising European Colonialism at Empire’s End, 1956–63
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With an emphasis on the British Empire Commonwealth, this article explores how English-speaking Canadians understood European colonialism – its historical purpose, legacies, and demise – and the anti-colonial nationalism that ranged against it in the years bracketing the United Nations’ adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in 1960. An extensive survey of opinion in the mainstream English-language press, supplemented by the perspectives of intellectuals, diplomats, and parliamentarians, suggests that empire apologism, contempt for anti-colonial nationalism, and the misrepresentation of colonial liberation struggles were pervasive. Building on recent scholarship that explores how race thinking shaped Canada’s international relations, and drawing from cultural theorist Kuan-Hsing Chen’s concept of deimperialization, the author argues that the preponderance of these phenomena evinced and abetted a failure to come to terms with colonialism’s deleterious imprint on the Third World.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".