Invisible Presence: The Whitening of the Black Community in the Historical Imagination of British Archives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le but de ce texte est de mettre en évidence les méthodes et les ironies de la recherche des histoires noires dans un contexte britannique.Il tente d'exposer les tensions entre la présence des personnes de race noire à Londres, leur présence matérielle dans les archives disponibles pour les chercheurs, et les complexités des histoires britanniques dans lesquelles leur présence est exprimée.ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to highlight the methods and ironies of researching Black histories in a British context.It is an attempt to expose tensions between the presence of Black people in London, their material presence in the archives available to researchers, and the complexities of British histories that their presence articulates.The permanent residence of Black people in Britain began with the development of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the greatest knowledge of the lives of Black people in British history (before 1948 and the arrival of the Empire Windrush) is intimately related to this period of forced migration between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries.Although Britain's involvement in this system did not develop to a large scale until around the 1660s, as early as 1554 John Lock sailed back from the West Coast of Africa with a cargo of Black slaves. 1 Of course Black history is not just about slaves, and the works of Black authors and activists who left their stories, such as Olaudah Equiano (c.1745-1797) and Ignatius Sancho (1729-1780) provide us with evidence of this. 2 Between the elite they represent and those who were the property of oth-* I would like to thank Richard Dennis and Claire Dwyer for their help with the development of this paper.I would also like to thank Cheryl McEwan and Alison Blunt for convening the AAG session where it was first presented, Joan M.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".