Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapter begins in 1828, in the London office of the British Anti-Slavery Society, where three writers—Thomas Pringle, Mary Prince, and Susanna Moodie (née Strickland)—collaborated to produce Mary Prince’s History of her enslavement, her abuse as an enslaved person, and her journey from the West Indies to London, where she sought freedom from her employers to return home to her family. Pringle and Moodie were also writers, who from a radically different perspective told narratives of migration to South Africa and Canada, respectively. Circulating together in the globalized print culture of the day, their writings share a common investment in the idyll, a classical form that functions as a highly adaptable mode in which to make sense of the conditions of their mobile lives and to express their desires for a past or a future that will improve upon their present lot. The chapter examines formal and thematic concerns which these works share with the idyll form in both visual and verbal registers, including their common investment in notions of curation, containment, and miniaturization. Although Pringle and Moodie write from the perspective of white settlers in British colonies, the many overlaps of their works with Prince’s History expose the persistence of racial violence within the settler context. As precursors to the new style of idyll of the 1860s, the writings from this formative moment in the history of British settler colonialism suggest that the dynamics of racialized exploitation will remain embedded in its form.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".