The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Unfinished Business: A Comparative Survey of Historical and Contemporary Slavery
Open accessAbstract
Interest in contemporary slavery has increased dramatically over the last ten years, but there remains a widespread tendency to view slavery in the past and slavery in current society as independent fields of study.This publication moves beyond this artifical divide, providing the first ever comparative analysis of historical slave systems and modern forms of human bondage.From this standpoint, recent concerns over human trafficking, debt-bondage, child labor and other related problems are analyzed in view of the historical strengths and weaknesses of the legal abolition of slavery.By bringing together a range of studies on different aspects of slavery, both past and present, this publication provides an innovative platform for promoting dialogue about ways of addressing both contemporary slavery and the enduring legacies of historical slave systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The memory of transatlantic enslavement is evoked both to explain the experience of ' modern slavery ' and to agitate for antislavery action (Quirk 2008; Trodd 2013).”
From Collapsing the Boundaries Between De Jure and De Facto Slavery: The Foundations of Slavery Beyond the Transatlantic Frame (2020) · cites this paper as Quirk 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schwarz, K., & Nicholson, A. (2020) · Human Rights Review · doi:10.1007/s12142-020-00604-y · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Quirk, J.
- Affiliations
- University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Quirk, Joel
- ORCID
- Quirk, Joel
- Venue
- University of Massachusetts Amherst
- Publisher
- University of Massachusetts Amherst
- Published
- 2008-12-01
- DOI
- 10.7275/474
- OpenAlex
- W1494071239
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 13.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion)
- University of Massachusetts (UMass) Amherst
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Colonialism, slavery, and trade
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › History of Colonial Brazil
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sex work and related issues
- Keywords
- modern slavery, comparative slavery, human trafficking, debt bondage, child labor, abolition of slavery, slavery legacy, human bondage
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Unfinished Business: A Comparative Survey of Historical and Contemporary Slavery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7275/474
- The paper
- Quirk, J. (2008). Unfinished Business: A Comparative Survey of Historical and Contemporary Slavery. University of Massachusetts Amherst. https://doi.org/10.7275/474
