MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097015060 · doi:10.1525/msem.2004.20.2.275

Two Decades of Anglophone Historical Writing on Colonial Mexico: Continuity and Change since 1980

2004· article· en· W2097015060 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

VenueMexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismEthnohistoryHumanitiesSubalternHistoryLatin AmericansCultural historyEthnologyPolitical scienceArtEconomic historyPoliticsLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on colonial Mexico continues to be one of the most important sub- fields in the history of Latin America in the United States, but also enjoys considerable attention in Canada and Britain. Over the last twenty-five years or so the approach of English-speaking scholars to colonial Mexican history has changed perceptibly. The rise of cultural history, ethnohistory, and subaltern history, for example, are all fairly obvious trends, even if they were already on the horizon by 1980 or so. On the other hand, more traditional styles of work such as economic history have continued strong. The article traces these changes, both in general terms and by looking at a number of monographs and clusters of works. One conclusion of the essay is that the rise of cultural history, ethnohistory, and the search for “subaltern agency”in more recent historical writings, by de-emphasizing the scalar measurement of Mexican underdevelopment so characteristic of older types of writing, have made for a less grim and monochromatic image of colonial Mexican society. La investigación sobre el México colonial sigue siendo uno de los sub-campos más importantes de los estudios de la historia de América Latina en Estados Unidos; también disfruta de una atención notable en Canadá e Inglaterra. No obstante, durante los últimos veinticinco años los métodos y planteamientos de los historiadores anglófonos frente a la historia del México colonial han cambiado notablemente. El ascenso de la historia cultural, la etnohistoria, y la historia de grupos subalternos, por ejemplo, son tendencias bastante obvias, a pesar de que ya se vieran en el horizonte historiográfico desde 1980. Por supuesto, los trabajos tradicionales, como los que versan sobre historia económica, han seguido fuertes también. Este articulo esboza estos cambios, en términos generales como también a través del examen de varias obras monográficas y grupos de obras. Una conclusión del ensayo es que el ascenso de la historia cultural, la etnohistoria, y la búsqueda de la “agencia subalterna”en las obras históricas más recientes, ha pintado una imagen menos sombría y monocromática de la sociedad mexicana de la época colonial, al desenfatizar la medición del desarrollo mexicano como si existiera en una escala lineal (una característica del estilo de los trabajos más tradicionales).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.226 · 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