MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593171304 · doi:10.4000/caravelle.2040

« Indiens ou Noirs, libres ou esclaves » : travail et métissage en Amazonie portugaise (xviie et xviiie siècles)

2016· article· fr· W2593171304 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

VenueCaravelle · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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