Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 14 broad-ranging and innovative essays in this collection examine the role of media and communications in shaping the British imperial experience in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. With perspectives drawn from both the peripheral context of the colonised and the metropolitan gaze of the colonisers, revealing new light is shed upon the part played by media institutions in shaping the political, economic, social and cultural dynamics of the British colonies and Dominions. The contributors seek to situate the role of media in the context of the empire and in the process throw light on the history of the media itself - in each case exhibiting sensitivity to the problematic relationship between media and the practice of imperial domination, of the economics of news collection and distribution, as well as the differing viewpoints of producers and consumers. The communication-media examined include electric telegraphs and news agencies, newspapers (national, provincial and local), books and printed ephemera, newsreels and wireless. In geographic terms, the coverage of the essays is equally wide, with contributions relating to South Africa, Kenya, Central Africa and Bechuanaland, Britain and the Indian sub-continent, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, Canada, and Malaya. --back cover.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".