Salmon P. Chase: Reclamation of Fugitives from Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reclamation of Fugitives from Service is the name under which the abolitionist lawyer Salmon P. Chase published his 1847 brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Jones v. Van Zandt. The case challenged the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, by which people all over the United States, whether in a slaveholding state or not, were required to return slaves as property to their slaveowners. A former slaveholder named John van Zandt turned abolitionist and began helping the Underground Railroad in Ohio spirit slaves away to Canada in defiance of the act. He was therefore sued by a Kentucky slaveholder named Jones for the restitution of Jones’s investment in the slaves van Zandt had taken from Jones. Chase defended van Zandt and made an eloquent argument that the Constitution did not allow the federal government to create or maintain slavery. Because the Constitution recognized no slaves but only persons, when an enslaved person left the jurisdiction of a state where slavery was legal, he or she ceased to be a slave. The 1793 law deprived alleged fugitives of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights by seizing them unlawfully and depriving them of due process. Although the Supreme Court ruled against van Zandt, Chase’s analysis of the Constitution as a fundamentally antislavery document became highly influential in northern abolitionist circles when he published his defense as a pamphlet.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".