MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515595583 · doi:10.33137/rr.v36i1.20018

Language as a Second Skin: The Representation of Black Africans in Portuguese Theatre (Fifteenth to Early-Seventeenth Century)

2013· article· fr· W2515595583 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
André Beló

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHispanic-African Historical Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesFifteenthClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article analyse le langage et le personnage de l’Africain Noir dans le théâtre portugais du XVIe siècle, en particulier dans les pièces ou autos de Gil Vicente et d’António Ribeiro Chiado, ainsi que celles d’autres auteurs moins connus et quelques intermèdes espagnols. On accompagne l’évolution du stéreotype du Noir considéré incapable de parler correctement les langues ibériques, depuis sa première apparition littéraire, dans le Cancioneiro Geral de Garcia de Resende. La première partie de cet article, plus méthodologique, met en cause la possibilité d’utiliser le langage attribué aux Noirs pour reconstituer une langue orale effectivement parlée, l’intention de dénigrement étant constitutive de ce discours. Ensuite, en parcourant les différentes pièces, on propose la notion d’un langage presque phénotypique, qui « colle à la peau » des Noirs et les désigne même lorsqu’ils ne sont pas sur scène. De manière moins rigide que le stéréotype, cette « seconde peau », qui est la langue, devient un instrument de dénigrement en soi, y compris de certains personnages blancs.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHispanic-African Historical RelationsFrench-language works237,207