Entre glosas y censuras. Recepción y circulación del Corpus Iuris Civilis en la nueva España (siglos XVI y XVII)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to show the reception and circulation of the Corpus Iuris Civilis the New Spain (Mexico) during the XVI and XVII centuries. It analyzes the importance of the Roman law as a part of the phenomenon of legal reception in the Spanish America. It studies the readings, comments and censorships of the different editions of these books, which were introduced extensively since the first decades of the American conquest. In the recent years, the Latin American historiography has analyzed the reception of the ius commune in the Spanish colonies, but it appears to give more priority to other legal sources as laws and customs. As a result of this point of view, it has been forgotten the knowledge contained in the legal books. In this research, my main sources are the books preserved in the Mexican National Library. The choice of the materials is due to it preserves the prints of some of the major libraries during this period (university, seminars and religious colleges). In order to achieve this objective, I analyze my period according to the Robert Darnton’s communication circuit. This methodological model focuses on the role of authors, publishers, printers, distributors and readers in the process of production, distribution and consumption of the books.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".