Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article offers a critical review of scholarship on black colonization and emigration beyond the United States between the 1770s and the 1850s. In 1816, a group of elite white men founded the American Colonization Society (ACS), an organization committed to sending free African Americans outside the bounds of the nation. By 1821, the ACS had secured federal funding for the project and purchased land for the new black colony of Liberia in West Africa. Historians have long disagreed about the aims of the ACS beyond its prejudicial presumption that African Americans did not belong within the nation. This founding debate has obscured the much longer and more diffuse history of colonization thought across the American colonies and the new United States. Well before and after 1816, both black and white activists planned alternative black colonies outside the bounds of the United States in West Africa, Florida, Haiti, Canada, Texas, Mexico, and the American West. This essay briefly reviews the major arguments in the scholarship on the ACS before turning to examine work that has looked beyond Liberia to embrace creative approaches to the scattered field of black colonization and emigration across the Anglo‐Atlantic world. This growing body of scholarship demonstrates ever more forcefully that removal and migration were at the center of conceptions of race, citizenship, and freedom in the early United States.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".