Ethnic empowering policies and postcolonial political exclusion in the British empire: An analysis of ethnic police recruitment and communal legislative representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Does ethnic empowerment under colonial rule shape ethnic power even after independence? Existing research offers mixed arguments and rarely differentiates between different types of political empowerment. Drawing on the historical observation that the parliament and the security forces were two of the major sources of political power in newly independent states, this preregistered study tests whether ethnic representation in the colonial constabulary force and the receipt of guaranteed communal representation in the colonial legislature reduces the risk of postcolonial ethnic exclusion in ex‐British colonies. It is found that the former has a strong and consistent effect on reducing the odds of postcolonial ethnic exclusion, but the latter, despite its frequent usage as a form of colonial ethnic empowerment, does not prevent political exclusion. The importance of martial vis‐à‐vis rational‐legal power in newly independent states and varying levels of diachronic continuity between the two forms of colonial empowerment may account for the diverging results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".