MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783952997 · doi:10.1111/ehr.12655

The amelioration of British West Indian slavery: anthropometric evidence

2018· article· en· W2783952997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. R. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Economic History Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoorhouseAnthropometryWelfareQuarter (Canadian coin)EstateDemographyPopulationHistoryStandard of livingGeographyGenealogyDemographic economicsSocioeconomicsEconomic historySociologyEthnologyPolitical scienceLawEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An older view among historians, predominant until about 1970, held that British West Indian slave maintenance standards were significantly improved or ‘ameliorated’ from the later eighteenth century. Subsequent research has disputed this consensus, although uncertainty remains on key details of slave diet, labour, and demography. As an alternative welfare measure, this study examines the reported heights of detained runaway slaves and ex‐slaves held between 1788 and 1838 at workhouses on Jamaica, the most important British West Indian colony. Analytical challenges arise through the limited age data. Also, a disproportionate share of the detainees had an urban background. However, these problems can be overcome with help from local estate records and from eastern Caribbean anthropometric evidence. The mean stature of Jamaica‐born adult detainees clearly rose during the period, and they gained a widening height advantage relative to their Africa‐born counterparts. This offers a useful indicator of trends for the enslaved population at large. The workhouse material confirms ‘old school’ judgements that substantive amelioration occurred, as a course of deliberate slaveholder policy.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Economic History ReviewSame topicColonialism, slavery, and tradeFrench-language works237,207