MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193745674 · doi:10.1093/ehr/ceab231

How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America, by Heather Cox Richardson

2021· article· en· W3193745674 on OpenAlexaff
Dana Elizabeth Weiner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe English Historical Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOligarchyEmancipationIdeologyElitePoliticsDemocracySociologyLawNew DealHistoryGender studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With this beautifully written book, prominent US historian Heather Cox Richardson offers valuable insights to historians and general readers about the tenacity of oligarchy in American politics since the seventeenth century. For some, American ‘equality’ has always been predicated on hierarchy. Richardson’s analytical scope is stunning; she proves history’s relevance to American politics and demonstrates interconnections between the US South and its West. The persistence of elite white male rule in the post-emancipation South is a familiar story, but less familiar is how its supporting ideologies took root elsewhere in the nation. Richardson highlights long-standing clashes between an orientation toward ‘equality and self-determination,’ and one toward a hierarchy with self-described ‘deserving’ men at its pinnacle (pp. xiv–xv). Excluding people deemed inferior by white male elites was fundamental to America politics. The assumption that a ‘permanent underclass’ was just and inevitable lay below colonial labour regimes, reaching its depths with hereditary...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe English Historical ReviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207