JONATHAN EARL CARLYON. Andres Gonzalez de Barcia and the Creation of the Colonial Spanish American Library. (Studies in Book and Print Culture.) Buffalo, N.Y.: University of Toronto Press. 2005. Pp. 253. $55.00
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book assesses Andrés González de Barcia's contribution to Americanist scholarship, examining his bibliographical, editorial, and historiographical production. Barcia is well known among scholars of colonial Latin America for his role as the eighteenth-century editor of sources on American history that later became incorporated into the literary canon. Distancing himself from studies of the Latin American archive by Roberto González Echevarría and Anthony Higgins, Jonathan Earl Carlyon discusses Barcia's scholarship from the perspective of his mise en livre (things such as his editorial choices, printed page composition, and publishing practices), his creation of a biblioteca (a physical space, a collection, but more importantly a “forum where knowledge circulates” [pp. 12, 126–154]), and his production of an editorial paratext (the writing surrounding a text) as a privileged venue of scholarly output. Using approaches developed in the field of textual criticism (including issues of bibliography, editing, and book history), Carlyon seeks to establish Barcia's influence “in shaping the way we study colonial Latin America today” (p. 7).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".