Advance Praise for <i>Ruling Emancipated Slaves and Indigenous Subjects</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract “Owolabi demonstrates that forced-settlement colonies are a distinctive form of colonial rule, fostering economic and political trajectories that diverge from—and surpass—the trajectories of other formerly extractive colonies. This counter-intuitive finding offers an important corrective to usual understandings of colonialism and development.” —John Gerring, University of Texas at Austin “In this book, Owolabi asks an intriguing question and, through an impressive multimethod analysis of several former empires, offers a compelling answer linked to the institutional legacies of colonialism. Ruling Emancipated Slaves and Indigenous Subjects is a must-read for any scholar interested in the long-term impact of colonialism.” —Matthew Lange, Professor of Sociology, McGill University “A bold, provocative, and persuasive account of the lasting effects of colonial rule. Longue durée arguments are exceedingly difficult to make yet Ruling Emancipated Slaves and Indigenous Subjects delivers on its ambitious goal: to show the importance of emancipation during the colonial era for post-colonial development and democratization.”
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 | 0.000 | 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".