« Indiens ou Noirs, libres ou esclaves » : travail et métissage en Amazonie portugaise (xviie et xviiie siècles)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’Amazonie coloniale fut longtemps tenue par l’historiographie pour une « terre d’Indiens ». On considérait que l’esclavage des Africains n’était pas économiquement viable, compte tenu de la pauvreté des colons et, surtout, de l’isolement géographique qui empêchait sa connexion aux grands circuits commerciaux de l’empire portugais. Or, il se trouve que, outre les nombreux registres relatifs aux indigènes, les sources coloniales se réfèrent avec constance aux Noirs et aux Métis. Moyennant l’analyse de la documentation coloniale produite sur ou en Amazonie portugaise, cet article vise à comprendre, à partir de la dynamique économique et sociale régionale, la constitution d’un monde de travail ethniquement diversifié dans lequel interagissaient, de façon inextricable, Indiens, Africains et Métis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".