Between honor and safeguarding the family. Secret baptisms and illegitimacy in the town of Tlaltenango, Puebla in the first half of the 20th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study analyzed illegitimacy and secrecy in the family structure of Mexico during the first half of the 20th century, emphasizing its influence on baptismal records. It explored the role of the Church in preserving honor and social cohesion, even after the creation of the Civil Registry in 1857. In Tlaltenango, Puebla, a “Book of Secret Baptisms (1902-1919)” was found, an unusual source that reflected strategies to hide illegitimate births and protect the reputation of families.Analysis of 1430 baptismal records showed that 286 corresponded to secret baptisms, representing almost a quarter of births in the period. An increase in the records was observed from 1916 to 1918, coinciding with the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish flu, events that altered population dynamics. Paternal absence became recurrent in the records, which could be related to the war and the health crisis.The study also revealed that the secrecy of baptisms derived from factors such as illegitimacy, incestuous relationships and the violence of the Revolution. The parish priest Manuel Solar used these records as a mechanism to avoid scandal and protect single mothers. Finally, the article concluded that these secret baptisms reflected changes in Mexican morality and social structure, evidencing an ongoing process of secularization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".