MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047481828 · doi:10.2307/971756

Majolica in the Early Colonial Andes: The Role of Panamanian Wares

2001· article· en· W2047481828 on OpenAlexafffund
Ross W. Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueLatin American Antiquity · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsColonialismMesoamericaPanamaPotteryGeographyArchaeologyEliteArtifact (error)EthnologyHistoryAncient historyPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one of the most common artifact categories found on Spanish colonial sites, the wheel-made, tin-glazed pottery known as majolica is an important chronological and social indicator for archaeologists. Initially imported from Europe, several manufacturing centers for majolica were set up in the New World by the late sixteenth century. The study of colonial majolica in the Viceroyalty of Peru, which encompassed much of South America, has received less attention than ceramic production and trade in the colonial Caribbean and Mesoamerica. Prior to 1650 the Viceroyalty of Peru was supplied with majolica largely produced in the city of Panama Vieja, on the Pacific. Panama Vieja majolica has been recovered from throughout the Andes, as far south as Argentina. Majolica made in Panama Vieja provides an important chronological indicator of early colonial archaeological contexts in the region. The reproduction of Iberian-style majolica for use on elite tables was symbolically important to the imposition of Spanish rule, and thus Panamanian majolicas also provide an important indicator of elite status on Andean colonial sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations45
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLatin American AntiquitySame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207