MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970045483 · doi:10.1017/s0022216x05000313

<i>Cañeros</i> and <i>Colonos</i>: Cane Planters in Tucumán, 1876–1895

2006· article· en· W1970045483 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Latin American Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArgentine historical studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaneSugar industrySugar caneLatin AmericansDiversity (politics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Agricultural economicsMillSugarAgriculturePolitical scienceBusinessGeographyEconomic historyEconomyAgricultural scienceEconomicsArchaeologyLawEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century Tucumán's sugar industry experienced unprecedented growth. Tucumán's mills relied on their lands as well as on outside growers for the supply of the cane. By 1895 cañeros and colonos were cultivating two-thirds of the cane processed in the province. This practice resulted in the incorporation of thousands of small and medium farmers into sugar production, a rather exceptional case among Latin American sugar economies. This article sheds light on this peculiar aspect of Tucumán's sugar industry by focusing on the diversity that characterised the group of cane planters, the circumstances under which they were incorporated into cane agriculture, the tensions that materialised in sugar-growing areas, and the strategies developed by planters to settle their conflicts with mill owners.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.289 · 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