Hegemony without dominance: \nracial ideology and the colonial project in British Honduras, 1847-1867
Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Honduras’ (modern-day Belize) nineteenth-century colonial administrators operated in a state of hegemony without dominance. They lacked the resources to effectively assert their control over much of the colony, but nonetheless had to uphold the appearance of dominance. Their official, racial ideology premised the legitimacy of their rule on the supposedly innate aptitude of “Anglo-Saxons” for governance and their ability to shield their subjects from the instability of post-dissolution Central America and the Caste War of Yucatán, the latter of which drove thousands of refugees into the colony. This ideology was fundamentally high modernist, dividing the colony’s complex social milieu into legible racial groups, each with an “ideal” place in the colonial economy and a justification for their subjugation. In practice, however, residents of all backgrounds regularly behaved in ways which flew in the face of the official racial schema. They forged interethnic bonds which challenged the rigid categories envisioned by administrators and repeatedly refused to play the part of obedient subjects. The British, for their part, were typically reluctant to exercise the authority or military might they boasted about possessing. In the end, the colony’s administrators clung to this mirage of mastery even as reality proved it to be illusory.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".