MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393168561 · doi:10.15460/jbla.60.2184

Scandal and Gender in Colonial and Nineteenth-Century Latin America - Introduction

2024· article· en· W4393168561 on OpenAlexaff
Sonya Lipsett‐Rivera, Verónica Undurraga Schüler

Bibliographic record

VenueAnuario de Historia de América Latina · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American and Latino Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismLatin AmericansHistoryEconomic historyPolitical scienceArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Violating the norms of gender frequently provoked scandal. This section presents the connections between scandal and gender by introducing the articles that are included in this special issue. Scandals may not seem worthy of scholarly work, but they provide an entry into the interstices of gender performance and the ways that people disrupted social norms. Scandals have three components: the transgression, its dissemination, and the receptive public. Gossip about individuals was often at the heart of scandals but it was also an important social force that established community values. The news of scandalous conduct was often spread by murmurings but also by pasquines and in later periods, in newspapers. The definition of the word “scandal” has changed over time as have the elements that seem shocking have evolved. In this special issue, the authors show how space of honor such as convents, recogimientos, and the family home could be violated. Institutions such as the Church and the State tried to enforce a gender binary but many cross-dressed for their own amusement in dramas or as a disguise. Single women were often the most vulnerable to accusations of scandalous behavior, but young men also were the target of accusations of vagrancy when they surpassed their families’ tolerance for youthful antics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnuario de Historia de América LatinaSame topicLatin American and Latino StudiesFrench-language works237,207