MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2775586765 · doi:10.3138/cjh.ach.52.3.02

From Hearing to Heresy: The Temporary Slavery Commission, the Congregational Church, and the Foundations of Anti-Colonial Organizing in Angola

2017· article· en· W2775586765 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kate Burlingham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismLeagueCommissionOppressionResistance (ecology)PortugueseState (computer science)SociologyGovernment (linguistics)World War IIPolitical scienceEconomic historyNarrativeLawHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers a narrative of the effects of transnational work spurred on by the League of Nations in Geneva. It begins with the Report on Employment of Native Labor in Portuguese Africa, which was presented to the League of Nation's Temporary Slavery Commission in 1925. From there the story moves to Angola where the Portuguese government attacked Congregational Missions, missionaries, and Angolan protestants who were perceived to be involved in the Report's production. Despite this violence, Angolans flocked to mission schools and churches in numbers that far outpaced the ability of foreign missionaries to meet demand. As a result, Angolan pastors and teachers took the helm in spreading mission activities into villages and areas where services were requested. By the 1960s, these Angolan-controlled networks would become important organizing centres for anti-colonial resistance. This article argues for the importance of the Angolans' reactions to state oppression during the interwar years and how it contributed to the post-World War II, anti-colonial revolution.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.020
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of History→Same topicAfrican history and culture studies→French-language works237,207→