MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179257551 · doi:10.29327/269116.2.1-7

O LÉXICO DA VIOLÊNCIA CONTRA A MULHER EM MANUSCRITO HISTÓRICO DO SÉCULO XVIII: CONSIDERAÇÕES LEXICOGRÁFICAS

2021· article· pt· W3179257551 on OpenAlexaff
Rebeca de Jesus Bomfim, Pollyana Macêdo de Jesus

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista GEADEL · 2021
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilologyArticulation (sociology)PortugueseIdeologyPresuppositionCharacter (mathematics)Field (mathematics)SpellingSociologyHumanitiesHistoryLinguisticsArtAnthropologyLiteratureGender studiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceFeminismPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a study of lexical units related to the lexical field of violence against women, from theanalysis of the semidiplomatic edition of the 18th century Application of the Overseas Historical Archive,related to Bahia, which was catalogued by the Resgaste Barão do Rio Branco Project, in 2019. Based onthe theoretical basis of Gonçalves (2017; 2020abc), Barbosa (1990; 2001), Welker (2004) and Abbade(2006) and from the philological exercise of editing in articulation with the lexicographic and lexicologicalstudy, 15 lexical units were listed and analyzed in this historical document, considering the definitionsrecorded in three lexicographical works, in their respective electronic versions: Bluteau (1712-1728),Vieira (1871-1874) and Moraes Silva (1813). By analyzing the lexical repertoire of the aforementioneddocument, it is possible to perceive social and ideological issues, which make us reflect on the cultural anddiscursive practices of gender violence in Portuguese American colonial society.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista GEADELSame topicLinguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207