Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imperial deaths were given the status of martyrdoms in the cause of what European contemporaries considered the advance of civilisation. In many cases burials stimulated the overblown architecture of commemoration discovered in many places in the Indian Ocean world. There could well have been at least 1,000 cemeteries and church graveyards in South Asia, as well as grandiloquent memorials in cathedrals and churches throughout the region. While there are many examples from the eighteenth century, these practices became particularly striking in the nineteenth, which was an era in which the obsession with data produced a plethora of directories of memorial inscriptions and related lives. Some of these were officially inspired while others were produced by undertakers and those fascinated by documentation. From these we learn about imperial lives, careers, localised origins, and social and familial contexts. However, both these directories and the memorials which they documented were much more than the sentimental appropriation of colonial space. They also reflected ethnic and religious diversity, becoming indicators of the ‘four nations’ as well as of the contrasting Christian denominations of the United Kingdom. This was perhaps particularly true of Scots, whose geographical, social and religious affiliations can be charted through many examples in the Madras Presidency of South India and of the colony of Ceylon. They help to demonstrate that a full understanding of ethnic diversities can be derived from the study of the ‘deathscape’ of the imperial 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".