The Colonial and Imperial Conferences, 1887-1937
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.010 |
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".