MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164039820

Viajeros europeos y sus motivaciones para visitar Ecuador en el siglo XIX: European travelers and their motivations to visit Ecuador in the 19th century

2020· article· es· W3164039820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María Belén Ortiz Chaves, Ana Cueva Navas, Marco David Zea Chávez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLiterary and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalityTRIPS architecturePoliticsGeographyHistoryHumanitiesQuarter (Canadian coin)CartographyEthnologyPolitical scienceArtImmigrationArchaeologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nineteenth century was characterized by the emergence of new material, political, demographic and intellectual forces that would have prompted the realization of trips around the world.  Also, incursions into inhospitable territories as a step towards the New Continent which has marked history, and has left extensive compiled on stories of experiences, feelings, journeys, points of view and impressions of travelers. This article aims to identify the motivations of travelers from France, Germany, Spain and England to Ecuador in the 19th century. For this purpose, a retrospective analysis was carried out based on the deep bibliographic review of primary and secondary sources in national bibliographic repositories as of the countries in question.  This, to subsequently proceed to schematize that information in summary matrices. Besides of motivation, registration of personal data of each traveler, so nationality as well as occupation were noted, to finally achieve a segmentation of six types of motivation of own elaboration. Preliminary results, after six months of work, indicate that majority of travelers moved for work reasons, following a collective feature of knowing places described as exotic; and then a thought of the epoch influenced by the desire to explore “the other Likewise, travelers stand out for motivated academics, for science, for art, diplomacy, for commerce, emissaries of scientists, collectors of natural specimens and even accidental visits.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiterary and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207