MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510890490 · doi:10.4000/caravelle.1914

Comment peut-on être Indien et citoyen ?

2016· article· fr· W2510890490 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maud Yvinec

Bibliographic record

VenueCaravelle · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Studies in Latin America
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceEthnologyArtHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entre 1826 et 1854, la contribución de indígenas héritée de l’ancien tribut colonial rétablit au Pérou la différenciation entre population indienne et non indienne, ce qui semble contradictoire avec le statut de citoyen que l’Indépendance a octroyé aux Indiens au même titre qu’aux créoles et aux métis. Le présent article tente d’éclairer cette ambiguïté fondamentale en illustrant la complexité du discours officiel : malgré une prétention à l’homogénéisation de la société, il continue sur certains points de considérer les Indiens à part, lorsqu’il ne se double pas d’un discours totalement opposé, venu d’autorités subalternes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCaravelleSame topicHistorical Studies in Latin AmericaFrench-language works237,207