MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7003773971

Post-colonialism

2014· other· en· W7003773971 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Access (University of Melbourne) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionRomancePeriod (music)ScholarshipEmpireIdentity (music)ConstitutionQuarter (Canadian coin)National identity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his book Tropicopolitans (1999), the post-colonial critic Srinivas Aravamudan captures the drift of current scholarship on 'the new eighteenth-century' by pointing to xenophobia, colonialism, orientalism, and racism as significant omissions from Linda Colley's influential account of the constitution of national identity in her book, Britons: Forging the NatiOll, 1707-1832 (1992).1 Generally speaking, post-colonial critics such as Aravamudan and Saree Makdisi, author of Romantic Imperialism: Universal Empire and ale Culture o(Modemity (1998), concern themselves with those areas identi fied as absent from Colley's work, areas which reflect a new interest in the cultural effects of colonization and imperialism in the late eighteenth century, as well as their various legacies today.Since the 1980s a large and diverse group of literary critics and historians of romanti cism, increasingly conscious of the intersection of their period of study with Britain's rapidly expanding empire, have begun to explore much more intensively the role of commerce, slavery, racial ideology, and overseas colonization in late eighteenth century literature and culture.So massive was the expansion of British dominion in the Romantic period-by 1820 Britain ruled 200 million people, over a quarter of the world's population-it was difficult for anyone in the late eighteenth century not to be involved in the imperial system, however remotely.For instance, many of the Romantic authors we study today were connected through family, friends, trade, or the profes sions to West Indian slavery.Jane Austen's father was trustee of an Antiguan sugar plantation belonging to a close friend from Oxford days.Matthew Lewis, author of the sensational Gothic novel The Monk (1796) was a slave holder, inheriting two large Jamaican sugar plantations.William Beckford, who wrote the oriental tale, \Tathek (1786), inherited enormous sugar wealth, while Thomas De Quincey's father grew rich as an importer of West Indian linen.Even William and Dorothy Wordsworth benefited indirectly from slavery's proceeds, enjoying a rent-free existence in the mid-1790s at Racedown, a house owned by the wealthy John Pinney, Bristol merchant and sugar plantation owner.Later, in 1801, suffering almost continuous poor health, Samuel Taylor Coleridge suggested to Robert Southey that they emigrate to Pinney's large mansion on St Nevis ('A heavenly climate, a heavenly country', he enthused) and get themselves appointed as 'sinecure negro-drivers' at 100 each a year.He seems to have been only half-joking.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · 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