MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036261631 · doi:10.2307/2652083

Mammon and Manon in Early New Orleans: The First Slave Society in the Deep South, 1718-1819

2000· article· en· W2036261631 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

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCuban History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierNewspaperHistoryColonialismEconomic historySociologyLawPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mammon and Manon in Early New Orleans: The First Slave Society in the Deep South, 1718-1819. By Thomas N. Ingersoll. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, c. 1999. Pp. xxv, 490. Paper, $25.00, ISBN 1-57233-024-4; cloth, $60.00, ISBN 1-57233-023-6.) Thomas N. Ingersoll's Mammon and Manon in Early New Orleans is an ambitious of synthesis that attempts comprehensive history of the Crescent City's first one hundred years. Divided into three equal parts that focus on the French (1718-1769), Spanish (1769-1803), and Republican periods (1803-1819), the book is based upon research in archival collections scattered across the United States, Canada, France, and Spain. In the absence of newspapers, tax lists, legislative documents, detailed diaries, extensive family papers, and other sources available to students of colonial British North America, Ingersoll has relied heavily on imperial reports, travel accounts, and especially judicial records. The author has also borrowed freely from the work of other historians, though he insists that much of the existing literature on eighteenth-century Louisiana is seriously flawed. Ira Berlin, Laura Foner, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, Arnold R. Hirsch, Joseph Logsdon, and James T. McGowan are among the scholars Ingersoll criticizes for contributing to misconceptions about the nature and evolution of what would become the South' s greatest city. Ingersoll begins by challenging the popular view of early New Orleans as chaotic and immoral frontier outpost. Instead New Orleans appears in this account as remarkably stable, upright, and tight-knit little community ruled by planters. The domestic discord, divorce, bigamy, incest, concubinage, prostitution, and other social ills found in nineteenth-century New Orleans played an insignificant role in the city's formative years; indeed, the author goes so far as to contend that colonial New Orleans a wholesome environment in which to raise children (p. 54). Ingersoll also dismisses the currently fashionable contention that colonial New Orleans should be seen as part of the Caribbean world. In his view New Orleans, no less than lowcountry South Carolina or tidewater Virginia, indisputably North American in character and after the Louisiana Purchase easily incorporated into the United States without significant cultural conflict or social dislocation (p. xix). The only change experienced by the planters, for example, was that their traditional domination now improved to the point of absolute supremacy (p. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.251 · 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