MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390272025 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-39814-8_2

The Enduring Impacts of Slavery: A Historical Perspective on South–South Migration

2023· book-chapter· en· W4390272025 on OpenAlexaff
Veronica Fynn Bruey, Heaven Crawley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCulture, Economy, and Development Studies
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersCoventry University
KeywordsLatin AmericansRepresentation (politics)Forced migrationPerspective (graphical)GeographyGlobal SouthHistoryDevelopment economicsContemporary historyPolitical scienceEthnologyEconomic geographyRefugeePoliticsArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is impossible to understand contemporary forms and experiences of South–South migration without first understanding the history of migration between countries generally classified as the “Global South”—the Majority World—and the enduring effects of slavery. This chapter begins with a historical overview and reflections on the present-day legacies of the transatlantic slave trade, the single largest forced migration between the countries of the Majority World, which mainly took place between countries in West Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Applying the “Global South” as a critical concept, this chapter examines the lasting impacts of the transatlantic enslavement of Black African peoples as a precursor of contemporary forms of South–South migration and associated responses, representation, and challenges. Arguing that much South–South migration is rooted in historical antecedents, the chapter also highlights the contemporary consequences of slavery for Liberia, where the return of captured and emancipated slaves led directly to the civil wars that devastated the country between 1989 and 2003, leading to significant displacement into other parts of West Africa.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCulture, Economy, and Development StudiesFrench-language works237,207