MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Em outra coisa não falavam os pardos, cabras, e crioulos: o "recrutamento" de escravos na guerra da Independência na Bahia

2002· article· pt· W2091050710 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de História · 2002
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistory of Colonial Brazil
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artigo analisa o recrutamento de escravos para as forças patriotas durante a guerra pela independência brasileira na Bahia (1822 a 1823) e faz uma distinção entre os recrutamentos de escravos e de homens livres e libertos de cor, freqüentemente confundidos. O alistamento de escravos durante esse conflito foi uma medida improvisada pelo comandante brasileiro, e não havia promessas de liberdade para os escravos. Depois do conflito, o governo brasileiro mandou alforriar os escravos que serviram, compensando seus donos. Ao mesmo tempo, autoridades lidaram com a grande quantidade de homens de cor alistados durante a guerra, contraste marcante à fileira principalmente branca do final da época colonial. A participação de soldados libertos no Levante dos Periquitos de 1824 serviu de pretexto para deportá-los, e também soldados não-brancos, da guarnição baiana. Dessa maneira, autoridades restauraram a demarcação entre escravo e soldado, obscurecida de forma inaceitável durante a guerra.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.255 · 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