Exoticism, Exchange, and Early Indigenous-Colonial Relations in the 15th to 16th Century Caribbean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initial interactions between Indigenous groups and European colonists across the Caribbean were largely shaped by pre-existingsociocultural conditions. The central importance of exchange for social construction and the concomitantly high value placed upon foreign material was common to many Native societies. This played in contrast to European understandings of exchange, which was far more focused on economic gain and competitive bargaining. The role assigned to exchange and the foreign in Indigenous and European societies guided their perceptions of each other and respective goals in interaction. Native systems were well entrenched throughout the regional networks of trade and culture in the Caribbean, and so colonists entered into a world fundamentally defined by such systems. European imperial views permitted them to exploit these systems, twist- ing Indigenous exaltation of intercultural trade into a tool for attempted oppres- sion, subversion, and assimilation. Nevertheless, colonists were unable to under- mine core structures, even if they appropriated them for the creation of new hierar- chies and dehumanization of Natives. These structures prevailed even as coloniza- tion grew more pervasive and degenerative.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".