Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been more than three decades since the National Science Foundation provided the funding for two young professors at the University of California, Berkeley, to establish the Southern Economic History Project. We could hardly have guessed in 1968 that our project, which culminated in the publication of One Kind of Freedom in 1977, would have such a long-lasting impact on the way scholars viewed the postbellum American South. The prospect of reexamining our youthful contributions as we write a preface for this new edition of the book is both humbling and exciting. Have quarter-of-a-century-old ideas and logic withstood the scrutiny of new evidence, new methods, new questions, and new sensibilities? There are, after all, many reasons to think they might not. First, consider the new research. As we wrote in the preface to the first edition of this book, “economists … had virtually ignored black history in the post-Civil War period” (p. xiii). This paucity of work thirty years ago stands in sharp contrast to the voluminous bibliography that exists today. Indeed, scholarly writings on the history of American slavery, the impact of emancipation, and the problems of the southern economy after the Civil War that we dealt with in this book have become so voluminous that we admit to have not thoroughly examined all of it ourselves. With the assistance of our research assistant Edward Essau, we compiled a Bibliography of work on the post-emancipation period that has appeared since One Kind of Freedom was published.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.256 | 0.142 |
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".