Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term “imperialism” means at least six different things, depending on the historical context and the disciplinary focus. First we have traditional, premodern historical empires like the Sumerian, Egyptian, Indic, Sinitic, and Roman. These were social, political, and economic entities of which little is left, and we usually study them as holistic structures, using whatever information can be obtained. Then we have the various empires of the Middle Ages, such as the Holy Roman (Germanic) Empire of Europe and the Mughal Empire in India. Since the emergence of “modern capitalism” in the sixteenth century empires have become somewhat more variegated. The modern capitalist empires within Europe (2) can be differentiated from overseas empires (3) without colonization. The overseas capitalist empires either involved widespread (4) white settler colonization, or not. But overseas European imperialism (3) without colonization and (4) with colonization are often discussed without any kind of clear separation. The United States and the former Soviet Union were both imperialist powers with white setter colonization but initially within a large geographic land mass. The lack of clear analytic separation of white settler colonies from other kinds of colonies is partially due to the Marxist critique of European imperialism abroad, especially in Asia and Africa. Latin America presents a more complex picture due to racial mixture. Since World War II most colonies have become independent, but many still retain aspects of neocolonial culture and the kind of cultural imperialism associated with globalization (5). In addition, the term “colonization” is now often used to discuss (6) a more metaphorical kind of “coloniality” and “imperialism” that has more to do with mass media and both elite and popular culture in a postmodern globalized cultural setting. One of the first critics of overseas imperialism was the historian J. A. Hobson. However, contemporary critics of imperialism often do not pay attention to historical context. Often the term “imperialism” is not used even when the historical reality can be considered imperialistic; globalization and rationalization have led to what is popularly called “McDonaldization.”
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".