Bibliographic record
Abstract
While much attention has been paid to statues, naming, commemorations, and portraits of slave owners and those who most benefited from imperial projects, the issues of slavery or colonialism are constantly cast as an external problem in European cultural conversations. Blackness in Europe, as Paul Gilroy theorized, was always external to Western spaces, history, and even “a-spatial” or “unsovereign”. This means even the most well-intentioned critiques of empire, slavery, space and naming in European countries were enriched by transatlantic savery fall short. These revisionist histories until recently have neglected to recognize that the practice of African slavery also had a domestic and metropolitan footprint within Europe. Using Britain and Cardiff as a case study through the archive of slavery and fugitive slave advertisements histories of slavery within Britain resurface. Redressing African diasporic histories and revisionist commemoration counters the celebratory commemorations of abolition devoid of slavery histories. Fugitive slave advertisements and the archive of slavery from understudied sites should be used to unpack these histories, names, and memorialize places of Black presence and resistance as a form of redress. Slavery and colonialism need to be confronted within revising monuments to slave owners and traders. Instead, new projects and counter-commemorations from Montréal, Copenhagen, Bristol and Cardiff make space for African diasporic histories and narratives of enslaved presence and resistance in unlikely spaces.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".