MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249732274 · doi:10.3989/ceg.2012.125.344

«Un esclavo que se llama Antonio»: venta de dos esclavos asiáticos en Galicia a inicios del siglo XVII

2012· article· es· W4249732274 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenueCuadernos de Estudios Gallegos · 2012
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHispanic-African Historical Relations
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La esclavitud era conocida en la Península Ibérica desde la Antigüedad y durante la Época Moderna y no se limitó a la sumisión de personas de origen africana. Este artículo trata de la venta de dos esclavos de origen asiático, Antonio y Domingo, en el puerto de Vigo en 1603; en él se analiza la ruta emprendida por éstos, el papel desempeñado por los marineros portugueses de la Carreira da India como vendedores, así como su origen y precio. Antonio y Domingo representan una minoria dentro del conjunto de los esclavos viviendo en ese momento en Galicia, pero su presencia es un ejemplo ilustrativo de la dinámica vigente en la época. [gl] A escravitude era coñecida na Península Ibérica dende a Antigüidade e durante a Época Moderna e non se limitou a sumisión de persoas de orixe africana. Este artigo trata da venda de dous escravos de orixe asiática, Antonio e Domingo, no porto de Vigo no 1603. No artigo analízase a ruta realizada por estes e a súa orixe e prezo, así como o papel xogado polos mariñeiros portugueses na Carreira da India como vendedores. Antonio y Domingo representan unha corrente minoritaria dentro do conxunto dos escravos que viven en Galicia nesta época, mais a sua presencia é un bon exemplo da dinamica vivida nesta época.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCuadernos de Estudios GallegosSame topicHispanic-African Historical RelationsFrench-language works237,207