<i>Empire of Influence: The East India Company and the Making of Indirect Rule</i> , by Callie Wilkinson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much recent historiography has argued against a narrow understanding of modern empire. From chartered companies to trustees and protectorates, the models of imperial control were many. The history of British rule in India is no exception. Despite the consolidation of East India Company power in Bengal from the mid-eighteenth century onwards, the Indian subcontinent remained a dynamic and contested political landscape, in which various regional powers were rising to prominence. To the west of Bengal the Maratha territories were expanding. To the south Mysore was emerging as a major power under the command of Haidar Ali. Moreover, the British were not the only European power still pursuing imperial ambitions in India. Anglo-French relations in India become increasingly tense as the Revolutionary and then Napoleonic wars threated to reshape the map of both Europe and its empires. It was in this context that the Company sought to extend its influence not by overt conquest, but via an expanding network of indirect rule known as the subsidiary alliances.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".