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 OpenAlexaff
Hendrik Kraay

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.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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

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 designNot applicable
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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de HistóriaSame topicHistory of Colonial BrazilFrench-language works237,207