Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent history of citizenship policy in the UK includes two main periods of legislative activity. Relations with British colonies and former colonies and migration from the colonies themselves drove the first period between 1948 and the 1980s. The second, which began in 2002, has been driven by variations in the concept of integration. After a long period of incompletely defined UK subjecthood (Dummett and Nicol, 1990; Dummett, 2006; Prabhat, 2018), the British Nationality Act 1948 systematically codified citizenship in the UK for the first time. Promulgated in reaction to the 1946 introduction of a specific Canadian citizenship, the law was strongly linked to relations with the colonies (Hansen, 1999; Karatani, 2003). At the time, the aim was to claim continued sovereignty over the colonial population, rather than managing migration to the metropole. Thus, this law was far more inclusive than those introduced in the following decades. One aspect of British citizenship legislation sets it apart even from other former colonial powers, namely its stratification of (post)colonial status. All colonial powers have used different statuses to coopt part of the colonial population in the government of the colonies, while excluding the majority from full legal rights (see for example Jerónimo and Vink, 2011; Hajjat, 2012). However, most colonial powers have simplified their legislation during decolonization, establishing a citizen/non-citizen dichotomy, while the UK maintained (and still maintains, though with fewer consequences) several intermediate statuses (Sredanovic, 2017). One possible explanation for their persistence in British citizenship is that the UK has been the only colonial power to have white-majority dominions (Canada, Australia and New Zealand).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".