MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214278747 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhab509

M<scp>iles</scp> O<scp>gborn</scp>. <i>The Freedom of Speech: Talk and Slavery in the Anglo-Caribbean World</i>.

2021· article· en· W3214278747 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEphemeral keyNothingPostmodernismHistoryAnthropologyArtLiteratureSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The millions of slaves who toiled and died in the Americas left little in the way of firsthand testimony. For the nineteenth-century US South, historians can rely on a vast collection of oral testimonies from ex-slaves collected in the 1930s, but there is nothing comparable for the Caribbean. Recently, slavery scholars such as Marisa Fuentes, immersed in a broader postmodern critique of the archives, have tried to reconceptualize how we use the “traditional archive” for “narrating [the] ephemeral archival presences” of the enslaved (Fuentes, Disposed Lives: Enslaved Women, Violence, and the Archive [2016], 1). Hoping to reconstruct the lived experience of the enslaved, the nature of slavery, and the capacity of slaves to resist, some scholars have turned to non-written and unconventional sources such as material artifacts or skeletal remains, while others have mined the remnants of visual cultures in the archives. Miles Ogborn’s new book The Freedom of Speech:...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.014

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207