MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117133288 · doi:10.4000/corpusarchivos.3912

Alcanzar justicia. El documento del pleito entablado por el obispo de Cartagena de Indias para recuperar el derecho de patronazgo y administración del hospital San Sebastián

2020· article· es· W3117133288 on OpenAlexaff
John Jairo Marín Tamayo

Bibliographic record

VenueCorpus · 2020
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Studies in Latin America
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesDerechoPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Durante el período colonial temprano, los conflictos entre las autoridades civiles y eclesiásticas por el control de las instituciones coloniales fueron bastante frecuentes en toda la América hispana. Uno de esos casos, prácticamente desconocido hasta hoy, fue el que enfrentó a Dionisio de Sanctis, obispo de Cartagena de Indias, con los miembros del cabildo de esa ciudad en 1577, pues el prelado consideraba que las autoridades civiles habían usurpado el derecho de patronazgo y administración del hospital de San Sebastián a las autoridades eclesiásticas. Este trabajo presenta la transcripción del expediente del pleito interpuesto por el obispo de Cartagena, algo de gran relevancia histórica porque permite conocer, en primer lugar y desde la perspectiva local, las estrategias adoptadas por los obispos en la solución de los conflictos que los enfrentaban con el poder civil y, en segundo lugar, el funcionamiento del sistema judicial durante el período colonial temprano. Asimismo, se revelan algunos aspectos, hasta ahora inexplorados, de la historia del hospital San Sebastián y del ministerio episcopal de Dionisio de Sanctis.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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