MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322842222 · doi:10.1525/sop.2013.56.3.377

The State Giveth and the State Taketh Away? The Antislavery Movement and the Black Franchise in the United States, 1691–1842

2013· article· en· W2322842222 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

VenueSociological Perspectives · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitantSuffrageDemocracyState (computer science)Political scienceVotingPolitical economyPoliticsLawCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the franchise is the centerpiece of U.S. democracy, serious scholarly study of the black franchise has been limited to the Reconstruction and Civil Rights eras. Consequently, the author examines black suffrage in the United States during 1691–1842 using event history methods and an original data set. Focusing on the neglected relationship between the antislavery movement and black suffrage, the author reports that disruptive and militant activism, warfare, and partisan politics influenced this phenomenon. There also is support for a generational model of movement success. The evidence clarifies two unsettled issues: (1) whether movements matter and (2) the impacts of conventional, disruptive, and militant protest on movement success. Moreover, as institutionalism predicts, voting rules spread across states through mimicry; and as group threat theory predicts, free black presence adversely affected black suffrage. The findings clarify why it took three and a half centuries for the American democracy to accept a race-blind franchise.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.032
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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