MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904009436 · doi:10.4000/mimmoc.2731

Abolitionists, Smugglers and Scapegoats: Assistance Networks for Fugitive Slaves in the Texas-Mexico Borderlands, 1836-1861

2018· article· fr· W2904009436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Mareite

Bibliographic record

VenueMémoire(s) identité(s) marginalité(s) dans le monde occidental contemporain · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American and Latino Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsFrontierIdeologyIncentiveGermanPolitical scienceRefugeeVariety (cybernetics)Political economyDevelopment economicsEconomySociologyLawGeographyEconomicsArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses the nature of assistance networks for slave refugees absconding from Texas to the Mexican border between 1836 and 1861. It argues that, by contrast with the more densely organized Underground Railroad that connected the US South to the northern states and Canada, structures of assistance remained fairly loosely organized and inconsistent in the Texas-Mexican borderlands, in great part due to the almost complete absence of an established and influential abolitionist network in its midst. A wide variety of actors facilitated slaves’ escape attempts to the Rio Grande/Bravo, for multiple reasons. In this expanding slavery frontier, ideological grounds to support fugitive slaves largely coexisted with economic incentives, self-interest and socio-economic proximity. Convinced abolitionists, low-skilled Mexican workers, German settlers, smugglers and frontier bandits shaped weak, unstable and ambiguous assistance networks in which the boundaries between protection, violence and exploitation often overlapped.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMémoire(s) identité(s) marginalité(s) dans le monde occidental contemporainSame topicLatin American and Latino StudiesFrench-language works237,207