MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083941949 · doi:10.7202/1117977ar

Black Women and Female Abolitionists in Print

2020· article· en· W3083941949 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Moffatt, Kandice Sharren

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanticism on the Net An open access journal devoted to British Romantic literature · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack womenHistoryGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The WPHP Monthly Mercury is the podcast for the Women’s Print History Project, a bibliographical database that seeks to provide a comprehensive account of women’s involvement in print in a long Romantic period. The podcast provides us with an opportunity to develop in-depth analyses of our data. In the August 2020 episode, “Black Women and Female Abolitionists in Print,” the entire team of the WPHP joins hosts Kandice Sharren and Kate Moffatt to speak to the Black Women’s and Abolitionist Print History Spotlight Series published on the WPHP website between June 19 and July 31, 2020. The WPHP team cameos are followed by a discussion between the hosts about the common themes of the spotlights produced. We then analyze some of the common threads across the spotlights, including how the people, firms and titles featured were documented and framed within a predominantly white transatlantic print culture. We conclude by considering some strategies for working within the constraints of the resources that we rely on and adapting our own data model to be more transparent and inclusive. This textual supplement includes a description of the episode, links to all records in the WPHP database referenced in the episode, resources relevant to this topic, our works cited list, and suggestions for further reading.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0120.002
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanticism on the Net An open access journal devoted to British Romantic literatureSame topicRace, History, and American SocietyFrench-language works237,207