MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608448303 · doi:10.29173/mruhr339

Anti-Slavery Movements in British North America and the Transnational life of “Obedient Servant” Samuel Ringgold Ward

2017· article· en· W2608448303 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kenny Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServantColonialismEmpireWhite (mutation)Power (physics)British EmpireHistoryGender studiesSociologyEthnologyAncient historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues that the writings of abolitionist Samuel Ringgold Ward and other anti-slavery groups were indicative of a larger trend of African Americans becoming influenced by Moral Colonialism. This colonialism was based on the belief that British colonizers were civilizing and therefore saving non-white populations, through measures such as appointing “protectors” to prevent non-white people from being taken into slavery and other forms of exploitation. In these writings, there are many descriptions given to the British Empire, describing it as a “glorious nation” and other similar labels, which argued that the British Empire was the most progressive power. Samuel Ringgold Ward lived a mobile life in America, Canada, Switzerland, Britain, and Jamaica, so this paper will use a transnational approach, showing the connections British North America had to other colonies in the British Empire, while also demonstrating the many influences on the views of Ward and other African Americans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR)Same topicColonialism, slavery, and tradeFrench-language works237,207