busca de los fundamentos político-teóricos del imperialismo informal español.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout this article, the basis of the British and French informal empires will be compared with de basis of the Spanish case. Using the newest existing bibliography that has researched the two referential cases, the main ideologists of the post-Napoleonic overseas expansion will be taken as example. After that, the Bourbon reformists attempts of the 18th century, the controlled independence projects and the confederacy projects of the first quarter of the 19th will be approached. The common points between these authors and proposals, which showed the foundations of the forced opening of foreign markets and the indirect rule of territories, are the ones that the historiography has considered peculiar of the informal empire. Even if only in the British and French cases general works have been made, the Spanish case also results to be convenient. A lo largo de este artículo se comparan los fundamentos del imperio informal en los casos británico y francés con el caso español. Partiendo de la bibliografía más actual que ha abordado los dos casos de referencia, se toma como ejemplo a los principales ideólogos de la expansión ultramarina posterior a las guerras napoleónicas. Después, se abordan los intentos reformistas borbónicos del siglo XVIII, los proyectos de independencia controlada y los proyectos de confederación elaborados durante el primer cuarto del siglo XIX. Los puntos en común entre estos autores y propuestas, que expusieron los pilares de la apertura forzosa de mercados extranjeros y el control indirecto de territorios, son aquellos que la historiografía toma como propios del imperio informal. A pesar de que solamente en los casos británico y francés se hayan elaborado trabajos generales sobre el imperio informal, el caso español también parece resultar propicio.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".