MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280645737 · doi:10.1215/00182168-9653465

Mapmaking and Sovereignty Building: Francisco Requena and the Late Eighteenth-Century Boundary Demarcation Commissions

2022· article· en· W4280645737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francismar Alex Lopes de Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueHispanic American Historical Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyIndigenousTreatyMonarchyNegotiationPolitical scienceAutonomyQuarter (Canadian coin)EthnologyTerritorialityGeographyLawHistoryEconomySociologyArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract After signing the 1777 Treaty of San Ildefonso, Spain and Portugal sent joint expeditions to demarcate their South American borders, as they had done a quarter century earlier. Focusing on the activities of Spanish commissioner Francisco Requena in western Amazonia in the 1780s and 1790s, this article shows that such efforts were not limited to confirming in loco the lines drawn in European courts. I demonstrate how Indigenous populations played on Iberian rivalries to maintain their autonomy and negotiate their resettlement. The very interactions between commissioners and Indigenous peoples intensified the porosity of border spaces. Because commissioners believed that sovereignty was defined through monarchical loyalty rather than simply lines on a map, they contributed to the movement of people and goods across the dividing line that they intended to create, making the border even more permeable to Indigenous claims to territoriality and cross-border interactions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHispanic American Historical ReviewSame topicColonialism, slavery, and tradeFrench-language works237,207