Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the Atlantic world—from Quebec to Montevideo and from London to Benguela—coastlines served as sites of local, interimperial, and transatlantic trade. While some scholars define coastal trade as domestic, this bibliography takes an expansive view. In a region inhabited by different European, Indigenous, African, and African-descended peoples, coastal trade entailed cross-imperial and cross-cultural interactions. In some instances, competing powers shared the same coastline. In northeastern North America, along a coastline home to the Wabanaki, British and later American territories neighbored French and then British colonies. Likewise, in the Caribbean, French, Spanish, and later Haitian powers shared the island of Hispaniola. Along these coasts, trade was naturally interimperial. In other instances, residents of the Atlantic world flouted imperial authority, refusing to recognize what they viewed as arbitrary boundaries. Indigenous peoples rejected European attempts to circumscribe borders, asserting their own understanding of coastal space. Meanwhile, smugglers routinely crisscrossed colonies and empires to sustain local communities in the wake of imperial neglect. The works included in this bibliography highlight the contested and quotidian nature of coastal trade. They consider how coastal trade could extend or contest transatlantic trade routes. They chart how this trade operated, sketch its geography and hydrography, and demonstrate how it buttressed colonization, often in ways that were distinct from oceanic trade. Taken together, these works show how coastal trade shaped the lives of diverse inhabitants throughout the Atlantic world.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.018 |
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".