Bibliographic record
Abstract
The previous chapter considered some of the ways in which postcolonial writers have revisited concepts of nationality and community by attending to the diverse histories and cultures of the areas they grew up in, histories which precede and accompany European colonization. Many of those writers, including Abdulrazak Gurnah, Wilson Harris, Michael Ondaatje and Salman Rushdie, had emigrated to Britain or Canada, and to some extent their attention to those early multicultural communities is influenced by their location in the more recent immigrant communities which have become a feature of those countries since World War II. Australia, Britain and Canada had all encouraged large-scale immigration to rebuild their postwar economies and supplement diminished labour forces. In Australia the immigrants came mostly from Britain and Europe, and until the 1970s non-European peoples were turned away under the White Australia Policy; Britain, on the other hand, actively recruited workers from the West Indies and the Indian subcontinent to service transport systems, the new National Health hospitals, and the steel and cotton factories. Consequently, although all three still have predominantly white populations of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic origin, Australia, Britain and Canada provide different contexts for the development of multicultural societies. Moreover, as the primary colonizing power, seen and seeing itself as the metropolitan centre, or as the ‘mother country’, Britain also differs significantly from Australia and Canada as a symbolic and actual site for those who had formerly been her imperial subjects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".