MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086202269 · doi:10.1080/03087298.2012.745710

The Likeness of Fugitivity: William Notman's<i>Carte-de-visite</i>Portrait of John Anderson

2013· article· en· W2086202269 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emilie Boone

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory of Photography · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortraitContext (archaeology)StudioArtArt historySociologyHumanitiesVisual artsMedia studiesHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1861, in his Montreal studio, the Canadian photographer William Notman (1826–1891) took a carte-de-visite portrait of the fugitive African-American John Anderson, who had fled to Canada to escape slavery in the US. Subsequently, examples of this portrait had been sold at abolitionist events. This essay explores visual strategies underlying the production of this image, at a time when Anderson had become the focus of a transatlantic extradition case that received extensive international media attention. The paper argues that the carte-de-visite functioned strategically to situate Anderson among free subjects by using a visual language of composure and stability, while relying also on a certain societal distance between Anderson and his many advocates. It shows too how Anderson, when posing for the carte-de-visite, negotiated the tensions between ‘objecthood’ and ‘subjecthood’ within a transatlantic context. Finally, it compares Notman's carte-de-visite with other examples of antislavery visual culture, such as the Wedgwood slave medallion, a daguerreotype abolitionist button and other depictions of Anderson.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory of PhotographySame topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207