MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Underground Railroad

2020· reference-entry· en· W4207067291 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Loren Schweninger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperSpanish Civil WarHistoryPoint (geometry)InstitutionUnderground RailroadLawGenealogyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Underground Railroad refers to efforts of “conductors” and “station masters” assisting slave “passengers” to escape from bondage. The term itself was not used until the late 1830s, although Runaways had plagued the South’s peculiar institution from its beginning. In theory, the escaping slaves were helped from one point to another point until they reached their final destination in the North or Canada. By the 1840s the term was used often. In 1842, an Albany, New York abolitionist newspaper reported that twenty-six fugitives had passed through the city, and that “all went by the underground railroad.” During the 1850s, the term came into general use as newspapers in the North, including the New York Times, described the Underground Railroad as “organized arrangements made in various sections of the county, to aid fugitives from slavery.” Some of the accounts tell of secret passageways, sliding wall panels, hidden rooms in “safe houses,” and dramatic escapes, as men, women, and children made their way to freedom. Although estimates vary, during the thirty years prior to the Civil War probably fewer than one or two thousand slaves escaped from the South to the North each year, through their own efforts or with the assistance of sympathetic whites and/or free blacks. If they were fortunate enough to cross the Mason-Dixon Line they were helped by free blacks and antislavery or abolitionist whites. It is clear that the Underground Railroad was neither a highly organized system with visibly defined routes and stations to assist escaping slaves, nor a system that remained in place over many years. Instead, it was a loose collection of local efforts, mostly in the North, to help fugitive blacks who began the journey from slavery to freedom. Vigilance committees thrived and then disintegrated only to be reconstituted in succeeding years. Tens of thousands of slaves each year ran away for various reasons but only a relative few were successful in securing freedom, and even then, many did so by their own individual efforts. Assistance offered to them was often brief and sporadic and the whites and blacks who did provide support many times feared possible discovery and realized they were indeed lawbreakers and subject to severe punishment.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2340.103

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
GenreOther

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 topicRace, History, and American Society→French-language works237,207→