Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1827, Lord Stowell, the judge of the High Court of Admiralty, was called upon to decide a controversial appeal from the Vice-Admiralty Court of Antigua. The issue was whether a person who had been a slave in Antigua, having resided in England for a period of time, reverted to a condition of slavery on returning to Antigua. Lord Stowell's decision, putting a restrictive interpretation on Lord Mansfield's celebrated decision in Sommersett's Case, was that the condition of slavery, though not recognized in England, revived on the former slave's return to Antigua. Lord Stowell's decision, usually referred to as the Slave, Grace, the name given to it in Haggard's Reports, soon became obsolete in British jurisdictions, but was influential for a longer period in the United States. The background documents reveal a number of important circumstances not apparent from a reading of the law report. The documents show that there was considerable anti-slavery sentiment among some of the officers of the Crown in Antigua and also in London. The law report states that Grace was "seized" by the customs officials, but the documents show that it was she who initiated the process, claiming protection from the customs officials in order to have her "right of freedom judicially declared and solemnly determined." The procedure had been used for this purpose in previous instances, and the dispute was perceived, both in Antigua and in London, as an important test case. The interests of the Crown, the anti-slavery movement, and Grace James herself were thus aligned in this case, which was strenuously argued for the Crown by Dr. Stephen Lushington, a leading member of the Anti-Slavery Society, well-known for his forceful anti-slavery sentiments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".