Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the end of the Second World War, Reuters’ status as a leading independent world news agency was under threat. While seeking to be a ‘world agency’, Reuters’ ownership was vested entirely in the British press. Decolonisation threatened traditional sources of revenue. American agencies were rapidly extending their global reach. In response, Reuters sought to re-constitute itself as a ‘British Commonwealth’ agency by offering a stake in the company to the national press organisations of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and India. In the event, the plan largely failed. South Africa and Canada declined to join; India maintained its shareholding for just four years. Only the press associations of Australia and New Zealand remained enthusiastic supporters. This article examines the failed 1947 negotiations between Reuters and the South African Press Association (SAPA), which were aimed at securing a partnership between the two organisations. It critiques Reuters’ idea of a ‘commonwealth of interest’ in matters of international news, conceived at a time of decolonisation and emerging nationalisms. It examines SAPA’s stance towards Reuters in the light of South Africa’s political situation, including the growing influence of the Afrikaans press.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".