MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005559337 · doi:10.2307/25095017

Lynching in the West: 1850-1935. By Ken Gonzales-Day. (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006. xiv, 299 pp. Cloth, $79.95, ISBN 978-0-8223-3781-2. Paper, $22.95, ISBN 978-0-8223-3794-2.)

2007· article· en· W2005559337 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Pfeifer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American and Latino Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierHistoryLatin AmericansEconomic JusticeState (computer science)NarrativeCriminologySociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceLawArtArchaeologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ken Gonzales-Day's deeply researched book highlights the extensive lynching violence that plagued California from the mid-nineteenth century through the first decades of the twentieth century. Gonzales-Day documents 352 victims of mob killing in the Golden State from 1850 through 1936, with 132 of those victims (38 percent) identified as Mexican or Latin American. As with the recent work of historians such as William D. Carrigan and Clive Webb, Gonzales-Day's analysis stresses the wide-scale collective violence of Anglos against Hispanics. Like Carrigan and Webb (whose findings he could do more to acknowledge), Gonzales-Day argues that the widespread lynching of Hispanics should lead historians to rethink histories of the West that have tended to ignore the racial dimensions of vigilante violence in favor of a narrative of “frontier justice.” Also like Carrigan and Webb, Gonzales-Day urges historians of lynching to broaden interpretations that have tended to focus on the lynching of African Americans in the South.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicLatin American and Latino StudiesFrench-language works237,207