Colonial and Nineteenth-Century Latin American Studies and Digital Public Humanities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholarship in colonial and nineteenth-century Latin American studies often does not reach beyond specialized academic audiences. The majority of work continues to be largely traditional in nature, with monographs, journal articles, and book chapters remaining the most common types of publications.Only a small portion of that production is distributed in an open-access format online, and even when that is the case, such scholarly output is generally not conceived with broader publics in mind, and engagement with stakeholder communities seldom plays a role in its creation.Digital methodologies and tools present opportunities to explore new modes of scholarly production and publication in these fields. Researchers working in a digital realm are designing and carrying out projects that speak to contemporary communities and involve diverse constituencies in new ways. Without seeking to supplant the more conventional scholarship that grounds their fields, these scholars are asking questions about how we conduct academic work in the twenty-first century and how we can make the products of our work relevant to larger audiences.This article examines five digital projects through which scholars of colonial and nineteenth-century Latin America are conducting work that looks outward from the academy towards inclusive scholarship: Ticha, the Biblioteca Digital Soledad Acosta de Samper, the Mexico team of the multinational project Oceanic Exchanges, Rendering Revolution, and coloniaLab. Through a commitment to producing scholarship for, and in collaboration with, diverse communities,these projects suggest models for conducting the work of colonial and nineteenth-century Latin American studies in the public sphere.Les études sur l'Amérique latine coloniale et du XIXème siècle ne s'adressent souvent qu'à un public universitaire spécialisé. Seule une petite partie de cette production est distribuée en ligne dans un format à accès libre, et même lorsque c'est le cas, cette production scientifique n'est généralement pas conçue pour un public plus large, et l'engagement avec les communautés concernées joue rarement un rôle dans sa création.Les méthodologies et les outils numériques offrent la possibilité d'explorer de nouveaux modes de production et de publication scientifiques dans ces domaines. Sans chercher à supplanter la recherche plus conventionnelle qui fonde leurs domaines, ces chercheurs posent des questions sur la manière dont nous menons le travail universitaire au XXIe siècle et sur la manière dont nous pouvons rendre les produits de notre travail pertinents pour des publics plus larges. Cet article examine cinq projets numériques dans le cadre desquels des chercheurs de l'Amérique latine coloniale et du XIXème siècle mènent des travaux qui s'éloignent de l'académie pour s'ouvrir à un public plus large : Ticha, la Biblioteca Digital Soledad Acosta de Samper, l'équipe mexicaine du projet multinational Oceanic Exchanges, Rendering Revolution et coloniaLab. En s'engageant à produire des études pour diverses communautés et en collaboration avec elles, ces projets proposent des modèles pour mener à bien le travail des études latino-américaines coloniales et du dix-neuvième siècle dans la sphère publique.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".