“Standard Transatlantic Practice”: Race Relations and Antidiscrimination Law across the Atlantic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract By the mid-1960s, many liberals in Britain looked to the American civil rights movement with a sense of awe and apprehension. On the one hand, British race relations professionals admired the progress of civil rights work and attempted to comprehend its applications to British society. On the other hand, some worried that British racial integration was regressing, as the arrival of former Commonwealth subjects at the end of empire stirred severely conservative opposition. This article examines how British race relations authorities spawned transatlantic networks of legal information and comparative analyses of civil liberties struggles in light of American and Canadian experience. It focuses on the construction of antidiscrimination law in Britain between 1965 and 1968, a key period when the Race Relations Board (RRB) first enacted its charge of providing equal opportunity for leisure in “places of public resort” and pushed for an extension of legislation to cover housing, education, and employment. In drawing on the expertise of state antidiscrimination bodies in New York, Toronto, and elsewhere, the RRB built shared networks of mutual support, developed critical commentary on integration projects, and exchanged legal advice to prevent racism and discrimination against Britons of South Asian and Afro-Caribbean descent. An analysis of these interactions expands efforts to map the topographies of notions of civil rights outside America. It also exposes an episode in postwar British history where British liberals called on transatlantic ties to reflect on their own racial politics and attempted to battle discrimination with adapted American legal strategies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".