MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605980700 · doi:10.29173/mruhr337

The Critical Years: Role of the Events of the 1780s in Strengthening the Abolitionist Movement of Britain

2017· article· en· W2605980700 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kaden Hubert Prowse

Bibliographic record

VenueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireParliamentBritish EmpirePoliticsHistoryFoundation (evidence)Charismatic authorityMovement (music)LawSociologyPolitical scienceCharismaAncient historyArtAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the success that the British abolitionist movement had over the course of the late 18th century and early 19th century was a result of a transformation that took place in the abolitionist movement during the 1780s. As the decade progressed, the abolitionist cause became a powerful force and organization as a result of the rise in powerful and charismatic individuals, that provided a voice and guidance for the cause; the Quaker’s involvement in laying down the foundation for a unified abolitionist movement; and finally, the refinement of pro-abolitionist arguments that were used to counteract anti-abolitionist tracts. Though the British slave trade was not abolished until 1807, with slavery being outright abolished in the Empire in 1833, the 1780s saw abolitionist sentiments spread across the British Isles and British citizens becoming actively involved in the cause to free the slaves. By the end of the decade the debate over slavery had become a flash point in British politics that led to heated debates in Parliament as to what course of action should be taken. Though the end of the decade did not see slavery abolished it did lay the foundation for the eventual abolition of slavery in Britain and the Empire.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR)Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207