MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036174586

American Private Foundations and British Colonial Higher Education

2024· report· en· W7036174586 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

VenueIssue Lab (Candid) · 2024
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismHigher educationCorporationFoundation (evidence)Colonial period
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This preliminary investigation explores the role played by major American foundations to sustain, finance, and shape British colonial higher education after 1920. It engages first with the philanthropy provided by funders like the Carnegie Corporation to universities in Britain and British settler contexts. Much of this funding undergirded anglophone networks of research and exchange. The investigation then shifts to US foundations' sponsorship of education-as-development for decolonizing British colonies after 1945. Especially in the case of London's "special relations" scheme, started in 1947, records held by the Rockefeller Archive Center (RAC) show the cooperative, even trans-imperial, approach of American and British officials to emerging colonial universities. Nevertheless, and much like British policymakers, American foundation officials applied different logics and forms of funding to colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean than they had to settler institutions in Australasia or Canada.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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