Scandal and Gender in Colonial and Nineteenth-Century Latin America - Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".