The Abolition of the British Slave Trade Seen from Sierra Leone: Padraic Scanlan’s Freedom’s Debtors: British Antislavery in Sierra Leone in the Age of Revolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay discusses the important contributions of Padraic Scanlan’s book Freedom’s Debtors: British Antislavery in Sierra Leone in the Age of Revolution, to the history of the abolition of the slave trade in the British empire. Scanlan’s innovative work emphasizes material concerns rather than altruism in explaining how policing the slave trade in West Africa and attempting to control the formerly enslaved, not least in redeploying them as soldiers, worked to the advantage of colonial administrators and British elites. The essay examines Scanlan’s work in relation to the economic history of abolition, the history of humanitarianism, the entanglement of abolition and imperialism in West Africa, and the military history of empire, which Scanlan vitally puts back into conversation with the history of abolition. It also asks how to include religion as a motivating force, and suggests that the book may undervalue the role of religious belief, not least among Africans. As Scanlan’s evidence shows, the line between freedom and unfreedom was by no means sharp. Debates about the post-abolition economy were accordingly informed by anxieties about the meaning of “freedom”, as ideological beliefs informed economic conceptions. Freedom’s Debtors demonstrates how events in Sierra Leone anticipated the fusion of humanitarianism and colonialism that was crucial to justifying empire in West Africa and underscores the vital importance of understanding abolition in terms of how it worked on the ground rather than solely how it was thought about in Britain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".