'The Eurasian Question' : the colonial position and postcolonial options of colonial mixed ancestry groups\nfrom British India, Dutch East Indies and French Indochina compared
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\n\n \n\n \n \n \n Eurasians were privileged groups of mixed ancestry in Asian\n colonial societies. They were the result of unions between European males and\n indigenous women. They neither belonged to the colonizers, nor to the\n colonized. When colonization came to an end, the Eurasians found themselves\n in a difficult position. The European rulers, on which their status was\n based, were gone. The new indigenous rulers usually perceived them\n suspiciously as colonial remnants and sometimes even as traitors. In this\n chaotic, sometimes violent situation, they had to decide where they belonged:\n in the country of their European fathers or the former colony, the country of\n their Asian mothers. This was a serious dilemma since they only knew the\n mother country from stories and lessons at school. In this project I have\n compared the position and options of the Indo-Europeans with those of similar\n groups from two other former Asian co lonies, the Anglo-Indians from British\n India and the Métis people from French Indochina. This study of Eurasians\n from three former colonies showed that an emancipation paradox of acquiring\n more rights while discriminated against more at the same time was instrumental\n in creating the framework in which Eurasians had to make their choices. \n \n \n \n\n
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".