Brian R. Hamnett. The End of Iberian Rule on the American Continent, 1770–1830.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians have long pointed out that the independence of Spanish and Portuguese America came as the result of a long process of political and economic change rather than from sudden or explosive developments. Here for the first time Brian R. Hamnett provides a thorough narrative of that process. Sweeping in scope, and covering the period roughly from 1770 to 1830 in both Spanish America and Brazil, The End of Iberian Rule on the American Continent, 1770–1830, is a notable achievement. The work of a well-known specialist on the period, it employs a vast array of primary and secondary sources. The book is not really for the introductory student, as it assumes a degree of knowledge about the independence period. For example, Hamnett subtly does not even use the word “independence” until he comes to the time after 1821, because outright independence became the objective of many of the rebellions only toward the end of the struggle. He argues that none of the Spanish or Portuguese American countries started out as nation-states, but only as successor states. Spain and Portugal after 1821 were successor states as well, in a new phase of their history in which they, too, had to redefine themselves. That redefinition on both sides of the Atlantic would take at least a century.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".