Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the expansionist fervour of the late nineteenth century through both world wars and the Cold War, a varied and ever-changing group of dreamers campaigned for Canada’s union with the British Caribbean colonies. They hoped to diversify Canada’s climate and agricultural capabilities, spur economic development, boost the nation’s autonomy and stature in the Empire-Commonwealth and the world, temper American power, and secure a tourist paradise. Dominion over Palm and Pine traces the transnational ebb and flow of these union campaigns, situating them in the global history of colonialism and white supremacy, Black activism, and decolonization. Paula Hastings centres the British Caribbean in historical narratives that rarely take account of the region, challenging us to rethink the history of Canadian expansionism and its entangled relationship with nation building, the struggle for sovereignty at home and abroad, and Canada’s evolving role and reputation on the world stage. Widely conceived, the brokers of Canada’s international histories included a multiplicity of actors who shaped the evolving contours and outcomes of the debate: Canadian legislators, civil servants, businessmen, and social justice activists; Caribbean migrants, intellectuals, and anti-colonial nationalists; and British colonial officials, absentee planters, and politicians. Canada’s lack of an overseas empire is often vaunted as a national characteristic that sets Canada apart from the United States and the old European powers. In excavating the dogged resilience of Canadian designs on the Caribbean, Dominion over Palm and Pine unsettles notions of Canadian goodness that rest on this self-righteous observation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".