MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962651362 · doi:10.17863/cam.108189

The Colonial and Imperial Conferences, 1887-1937

2023· dissertation· en· W6962651362 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueApollo (University of Cambridge) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionColonialismPoliticsImperial unit systemLeagueInstitutionWhite (mutation)Globe

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first Colonial Conference met in London in 1887. The Conference was an experiment in imperial and international political consultation and came after years of lobbying by the Imperial Federation League (IFL) and the broader imperial unity movement which sought to reform Britain’s relations with its self-governing settler colonies. For the first time, British leaders met representatives of these distant colonies in the same room. It was the beginning of an efficient political institution that regularly brought people together from across the globe and bridged political and personal differences. Between 1887 and 1937, there were fifteen Conferences; thirteen were held in London at the heart of the imperial metropolis and two in Ottawa hosted by Canadian Governments keen to seize the initiative. Initially the Conference were dubbed ‘Colonial’ but after the 1907 Conference they became ‘Imperial’ Conferences, just as the white settler colonies renamed themselves as ‘Dominions’. Typically lasting around five weeks, the Conferences were elaborate events which became as much social and cultural gatherings as political meetings. The Conferences were successful precisely because through this parallel social programme they became regular opportunities for British and Dominion elites to network and build relationships and trust. As experiences, the Conferences often shaped colonial delegates’ ideas about the British Empire. Over five decades, up to the eve of the Second World War in 1937, the Colonial and Imperial Conferences emerged as the central institution for managing the evolving imperial relationship. The British Government discovered that the Conference method enabled them to subtly control the agenda through weaponised hospitality, just as the Dominions discovered the strength of working together to protect their collective interests. These Conferences were crucial to the transition from Empire to Commonwealth. As it appeared, the British Commonwealth of Nations retained the Conferences as their governing body and its consensus approach to decision-making and rhetorical appeals to familial links and shared values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApollo (University of Cambridge)Same topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207