MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4316192710 · doi:10.1017/9781009215329.003

Dominion and Dyarchy: The Absent Presences

2023· other· en· W4316192710 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Legg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireDominionModernityFirst world warPoliticsDemographicsDemocracyScope (computer science)Order (exchange)HistoryEconomic historyGeographyAncient historyPolitical scienceSociologyDemographyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The First World War not only reconfigured the British Empire’s economy, politics and demographics, but it also disrupted its sense of time and space. Imperial weldings of history and geography had previously placed Europe in a present-future to which the rest of the past-present world might aspire (Fabian 1983). This aspiration was viewed sequentially, with peoples and nations passing through a series of stages in order to reach a (permanently deferred) shared status of modernity and democracy (Kaviraj 2005). During and after the war this geography was challenged by people of the empire who looked across its global scope and wanted what other (whiter, richer, more independent) people had, immediately (Matera and Kent 2017). The result was an attempt to configure a ‘third’ British Empire. The first such empire had been focused on settler colonies in the western hemisphere with a pretence at cultural unity (Darwin 1999). The second, post–American Revolution empire encompassed societies in Africa and Asia that required local collaborators and a geographical differentiation between the informal empire, settler colonies and a ‘dependent’ empire that included India. The turbulent decade after the war saw radical change produce a third empire, with new mandated territories in the Middle East, democratic reforms in the United Kingdom and British India, and the formalisation of the older white settler colonies of Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, as well as the Irish Free State, into dominions. The latter would be the cornerstones of the development of the modern commonwealth, after the jettisoning of imperial federationist attempts to unify the empire at the Imperial Conference of 1917 (Darwin 1999, 68). Mrinalini Sinha (2013, 171) has shown that the Commonwealth envisaged the empire configured like the League of Nations, as a hierarchy of current or potential nation-states. Her reading retains an emphasis on the dominions, but as drivers of imperial reform, not merely as models for the Commonwealth. The third empire hierarchy was racial, with white-dominated dominions and the British government propagating inequality between the Crown’s colonial subjects in terms of mobility, law and institutional recognition (Banerjee 2010; Mawani 2018). It was this geographical imagination of a nation-state empire rather than an imperial empire that marked out the interwar world and informed both colonial and anti-colonial projects (Sinha 2013).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIrish and British Studies→French-language works237,207→