MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325043262 · doi:10.1093/jahist/96.3.819a

Captives and Voyagers: Black Migrants across the Eighteenth-Century British Atlantic World. By Alexander X. Byrd. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2008. xiv, 346 pp. $49.95, ISBN 978-0-8071-3359-0.)

2009· article· en· W2325043262 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John K. Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSierra leoneNova scotiaBaton rougeState (computer science)HistoryBlack africanEthnologyAncient historyGeographyGender studiesGenealogySociologyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the beginning of Captives and Voyagers, Alexander X. Byrd presents the reader with a paradox: the crossed paths of a few hundred black Londoners arriving in Sierra Leone as free migrants and of tens of thousands of African slaves from the Biafran hinterland traversing the Atlantic Ocean in the opposite direction. He sets up the contrast between the choices of free people and of slaves as a larger theme for the book. The first of the book's three parts examines the forced migration of people from the Niger Delta ports of West Africa (now Nigeria) to analyze how this diverse group of Africans came to be Ibos in America. The second part investigates the hardships of slaves in Jamaica (without focusing on any specific cultural or regional group of Africans). The third part traces the migration of black Londoners to Sierra Leone and the difficulties facing black Loyalists in Nova Scotia (prompting their decision to return to Sierra Leone). In the last chapter, Byrd returns to the experience of the black Londoners in Sierra Leone but eschews the contemporary story of the Nova Scotians because it has been told in detail by other scholars.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicColonialism, slavery, and tradeFrench-language works237,207