Terre-neuve et l'Oyapoc:une histoire de frontières politiques entre la morue et les diamants.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Os mapas históricos das Américas durante o período colonial nos permitiram apreender a querela das possessões entre Portugal, França e Inglaterra. Por trás das disputas da pesca e da secagem do bacalhau na Terra Nova e da existência de diamantes no Oiapoque, vêem-se as novas relações internacionais que se desenvolvem para o enquadramento do Novo Mundo no contexto internacional. Os Tratados de Tordesilhas, de 1494, o Tratado de Utrech, de 1713, o Tratado de Paris, de 1763, e o Ato de Viena, de 1815, são exemplos da evolução dos laços entre o Estado e o território, cuja demarcação das fronteiras revela não só a formação das novas sociedades políticas como também a busca da soberania das gentes no Quebec, no Canadá britânico, no Brasil e na Guiana Francesa.Résumé: Les cartes historiques des Amériques pendant la période coloniale nous ont fait apprendre la querelle de possessions territoriales entre le Portugal, la France et l´Angleterre. Derrière les disputes concernant la pêche et le séchage de la morue à la Terre-Neuve et l´existance des diamants à l´Oyapoc, on voit les nouvelles relations internationales qui se déroulent visant l´encadrement du Nouveau Monde dans le contexte international. Le Traité de Tordesilhas de 1494, le Traité d´Utrech de 1713, le Traité de Paris de 1763, et l´Acte de Vienne de 1815 sont des exemples de l´évolution des liens entre l´État et le territoire dont la démarcation des frontières révèle aussi bien la formation des nouvelles sociétés politiques que la recherche de la souveraineté des gens au Québec, au Canada britanique, au Brésil et à la Guyane française.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".