Canada and Argentina: the First Preference of the British Investor, 1904-14
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yet it is one (among many) of the consequences of Paish&s;s estimates that priorities in the destination and character of Britain&s;s overseas investment during its Golden Age, 1904-12, have been misunderstood. Paish, when he made the claims quoted at the head of this article, was referring to the aggregate of British investment overseas right back into the nineteenth century. His prose is misleading, and he sometimes got it wrong himself. But his original intention was to produce an aggregate - what Britain had invested abroad since overseas investment began. He did not mean to suggest net figures for securities held at the time he delivered his papers, 1909, 1911 and 1914.3 Fashions change, securities move freely between investors, some investments are repatriated, others are sold, bought and re-sold, loans are repaid. Although it must have been true, for the half-century before 1914, that in aggregate the larger part of British investment found a home in the United States, India, and in the &s;white&s; Dominions, it was no longer the case that new investment during the Golden Age followed the same path. It was also true, in aggregate and over Paish&s;s 50-60 years (1865/701914) that the share of government bonds and railway securities in total investment was overwhelmingly large, but the distribution was no longer so obvious for the decade before the First World War. John Dunning followed Herbert Feis, who in turn followed (and misunderstood) Paish, when he claimed that, in 1913, 40 per cent of Britain&s;s investment port- folio overseas was in railways, and 30 per cent in government and municipal securities.4 This might have been correct for the accumulated figures of over half a century, but national, federal, state and municipal securities were always the first to return to the domestic investor, and it is unlikely that as much as 30 per cent of the British portfolio remained in these categories as late as the end of 1913.5 By 1914 perhaps half of Britain&s;s holdings of US railway securities had returned to the United States or were sold to other, non-British investors, and almost as much of the British railway system in India had been bought up by domestic investors, both native and foreign.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".