The Struggle for Imperial Preferential Trade, 1887-1917, with Particular Reference to New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The years 1887-1917 were years of continuous efforts to reconcile seeming irreconcilables in the economic sphere of relations between Great Britain and those of her self-governing colonies who were rapidly attaining to nationhood: Canada, the Australian and South African colonies, and New Zealand. Simply stated the problem on the one side was how the Mother Country could satisfy the demands of these colonies for some preference to their exports, when to do so would involve her in a fiscal revolution. She stood firmly, with almost religious fervour by the tenets of free trade, and to advocate any radical change would be a policy of political suicide for any party which adopted it as its platform. At the time she was the leader of the world's commerce, a fact that she attributed to the very free trade policy which the colonies would overthrow. From the colonial point of view, the problem was to meet what appeared to them, a growing threat to their own exports by those foreign powers, mainly Germany and America, who through a policy of protection were keeping British products out of their own markets, and who through subsidies and differential rates were able to undersell the colonies on the Home market. These same foreign powers, in spite of colonial protective tariffs, were able to compete with the small local industries, and in many cases could undersell the the produce of the Mother Country in the colonies. The answer which the colonies seized eagerly upon and fought so long and strenuously for, was an imperial preferential trade. Immediately, however, they were faced with the fact that the portion of the Empire most concerned, namely Britain, refused to change her fiscal system for a policy which she considered unnecessary and inimical to her own interests.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".