Les marges creatrices : emergence des intellectuel·le·s noir·e·s et metis·se·s et indigènes aux Ameriques (XIXe-XXe siècles) The creative power of margins: the rise of black, native, and mixed-race intellectuals in the Americas, 19th-20th centuries Las márgenes creadoras: aparición de intelectuales negro(a)s, mestizo(a)s e indígenas en las Américas, siglos 19-20 Margens criativas: a emergência de intelectuais negro(a)s, mestiço(a)s e indígenas nas Américas nos séculos XIX e XX
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le numéro 16 de la revue IdeAs. Idées d’Amériques portera sur « Les marges créatrices : émergence des intellectuel·le·s noir·e·s et métis·se·s et indigènes aux Amériques (XIXe-XXe siècles) ». Nous voulons nous intéresser aux Amériques intellectuelles noires et non-blanches. Ainsi proposons-nous de consacrer un numéro au sujet, en ouvrant notre problématique à une triple perspective : un élargissement du domaine géographique, culturel, ethnique et « racial » (l’ensemble des Amériques, avec en conséquence la prise en compte des acteurs noirs, indigènes, « mulâtres » ou métis selon les pays, les situations et les terminologies), l’ouverture vers la dimension du genre (les stratégies et contributions des femmes afro-descendantes, indigènes ou métisses) et les processus de création intellectuelle et d’édition plus largement compris (écriture de l’histoire, mais aussi de la fiction).
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".