Bibliographic record
Abstract
For centuries, the United States has euphemized their imperial endeavours across the North American continent as they have continued to rely on providential rhetoric to justify their means of colonial expansion. This research critiques beliefs of American exceptionalism in an attempt to expose the hidden ills of America’s colonial efforts. It looks at the activities of Boston’s missionaries in Honolulu, Hawaii, in the nineteenth century and examines the way American identity and understandings of their own exceptionalism manifested on the ground via imperial pursuits. Sponsored by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), Boston’s missionaries entered Hawaii in 1819 with the intent to civilize what they perceived as an uncivilized nation. In colonial Hawaii, we will see the extensive blurring of lines between informal and formal empire, which this paper positions as a deliberate transition pivotal for the archipelago’s 1898 annexation. These actions will be observed through a Marxists-based approach to examine how the gradual subjugation of Hawaii’s Indigenous population occurred through religious and educational institutions. Religion and education will therefore be observed as tools used for grander imperial pursuits in colonial Hawaii. As this paper attempts to deconstruct beliefs associated with American exceptionalism, it will look at its origins—that is, Christian belief structures that informed ideas of America’s superiority—and its practical workings on behalf of Bostonian missionaries.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".