Da libertinagem no Brasil colonial: a construção da imagem amoral das mulheres na literatura de viagem (1611-1808)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Along with the landing of the fleet led by Pedro Álvares Cabral in the American Continent, many European efforts arose intending to devise and establish the outlines of what would Brazil and its inhabitants be. Inside this foreigner construction of Brazil certain common grounds can be identified without great difficulty. The present work concerns with mapping one of those topics: the debauchery of women in Colonial Brazil. During the sixteenth century, the country's native women - recurrent characters in travel literature - would already surprise Old World readers with their erotic profligacy. However, it is in the early seventeenth century that the lust before attributed to the natives starts to definitely characterize women from colonial Brazilian society. It is intended, in the following pages, to describe how such a libertine image of Portuguese American women was built by the Europeans. To this end, the present work will deal with travel literature written between 1611, when François Pyrard of Laval's credited travel reports are published - the first written work to mention the depracy of the Portuguese Colony's women - and 1808, the years King John VI's court arrives in Rio de Janeiro and imposes profound changes in colonial society behavior
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".