“Laws that make them slaves there, make them slaves here:” The Status of Slavery in England and its influence on the colony of Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nova Scotia was the only colony in the transatlantic world to possess no statute laws or slave codes; thus, Nova Scotia did not have legal authorization to enforce slavery. The absence of statute law in Nova Scotia engendered significant legal ambiguities on the general status of slavery in the colony. Following 1783, Nova Scotia’s legislative and judicial institutions were greatly destabilized by Loyalist migration, and the colony searched across the transatlantic world for legal answers. England, similarly to Nova Scotia, did not possess any statute laws to enforce slavery; the metropole and the colony of Nova Scotia thus shared a similar ambiguity towards the status and regulation of slavery. Therefore, evidence suggests that judicial rulings made in Nova Scotia regarding the status of slavery were directly influenced by common law established in England. Specifically, Somerset v Stewart and subsequent cases in England legitimized and influenced Chief Justice Blowers and Strange to impose a judicial war of attrition against slavery in Nova Scotia. Although Nova Scotia’s legal system had become effective in eradicating slavery, the system did not always provide permanent freedom, and in many cases freed black men and women risked kidnapping and re-enslavement. Ultimately, slavery in the Canadian colonies is a topic that has been erased from the historiographical narrative and has been ignored by generations of historians. Nonetheless, it signifies that more work is required to establish stronger connections between the metropole and Canadian colonies, but also, the intercolonial and transatlantic influences on slavery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".