MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Explaining the First Emancipation: Social Movements and Abolition in the U.S. North, 1776-1804

2011· article· en· W2200947135 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMobilization An International Quarterly · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmancipationCountermovementScholarshipSocial movementPoliticsPolitical scienceResistance (ecology)Political economySociologyGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why did states in the US North abolish slavery? This question remains unanswered, despite nearly 150 years of historical work on the subject. To explore this question I offer two "firsts": the use of social movement theory to frame the research, and a quantitative analysis of an original data set to test the theory. I contribute to movement scholarship by examining a number of themes neglected in work on the political outcomes of activism: movement-countermovement dynamics; the link between religious beliefs and religious activism; the outcomes of religious movements; and the economic interests of social actors. Results show that emancipation was affected by Quaker-led antibondage protests; the countermovement of the Dutch Reformed church; this-worldly and otherworldly religions; economic incentives; and political opportunities. Black protest had no impact on abolition, challenging the thesis of black resistance as a major factor in emancipation.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.268 · 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