Feet in the South, Eyes to the West: Fort Smith Enters the Sunbelt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the political realignment of Fort Smith, Arkansas and argues that the standard historiographical argument about the process of realignment does not explain what occurred in this city. Much of the historiography of political realignment currently revolves around the belief in a white backlash against the federal government and the national Democratic Party for their support of African American civil rights. Though historians have moved toward a "suburban synthesis" that downplays the backlash thesis, historians still argues that many white southerners moved to the suburbs to avoid integration. I argue that this process did not occur in the city of Fort Smith to the extent that it may have in other regions of the South. Rather, the citizens of Fort Smith began voting Republican as a way to entice northern industry to the region as a way of boosting the city's economy after the shutdown of Fort Chaffee; the fort was built during World War II and acted as the main source of economic growth for the city. Once the base was shut down, local elites in the local Chamber of Commerce began to devise methods to attract industry to the city as a way of keeping the local economy afloat. Over the course of a decade, they transformed the city from one that relied on the federal government to one that relied on industry. These changes coincided with Orval Faubus' push to industrialize Arkansas, however, the arrival of Winthrop Rockefeller created the opportunity for Arkansas Republicans to make major gains. Since the Fort Smith Chamber of Commerce leaders were Republicans they convinced the people of Fort Smith to support the Republican Party. By the early 1960s, industry had created thousands of high paying jobs in the city and made it one of the wealthiest in the state. Fort Smith voters began to vote for Republicans primarily as a way to ensure economic success and not out of racial animosity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.003 |
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".