Wendy Warren. New England Bound: Slavery and Colonization in Early America.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In New England Bound: Slavery and Colonization in Early America, Wendy Warren offers one simple historiographical intervention, arguing that slavery was an important institution in early colonial New England. “Slavery and colonization,” she explains, “went hand in hand” as Europeans expanded to the Americas—and New England was no exception (1). Historians have often contrasted the religious motivations that dominated the settlement of early New England with the economic motivations that drove the settlement of the southern mainland colonies or the West Indies. Crudely put, New Englanders are associated with piety, and their more southern brethren are associated with greed. Warren is certainly not the first scholar to show that slavery was part of the economy in New England, but this book is the most thorough consideration of the role that slavery played in the region. She finds that “almost nothing about early New England’s practice of slavery was unique to the region” (12); chattel slavery in New England operated just as it did elsewhere in the English Atlantic. It was borrowed from Iberian practices and adapted to English purposes. Slaves in New England were commodified and served in perpetual and hereditary bondage. The colony was fully connected to an Atlantic trade in slaves. Warren asks her reader to “picture the ocean’s slave trade seeping into the country, first in the oceanside port cities and then upriver, far inland” (81). Warren moves beyond just the economic function of slavery to carefully consider the experiences of the enslaved, what emotions they may have felt, and the psychological trauma wrought by enslavement. She stresses the “desperate loneliness” of New England’s slaves, because slavery in this region usually meant “individual slaves in individual houses” (12).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".