“By your exertions conjointly with ours”:\nBritish printed cottons in Brazil, 1827-1841
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning with the arrival of Portuguese colonists in 1500, Brazil attracted the attention of traders throughout the Atlantic world. England's close commercial and political ties with Portugal, and later with Brazil itself, allowed British merchants to dominate trade with the South American state. By the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the production of printed cottons in Britain had expanded thanks to technical and chemical innovations. Simultaneously, the new nation of Brazil developed trade policies favoring British goods, including desirable printed textiles. In 1834, just twelve years after declaring independence from Portugal, Brazil became the single largest market for English printed cottons. A letter-book known as the Potiers Diary presents an invaluable lens on the execution of the textile trade with Britain during the first decades of Brazil's independence: It records the correspondence sent from five British merchant firms operating in three Brazilian port cities between 1827 and 1841. The letters capture market reactions to specific prints, as well prices and import duties. Conflicts within Brazil, competition among importers, and evolving trade regulations shaped the conduct of business among these traders. Cotton goods, in particular, provided a medium through which British merchants, forbidden from direct participation in the slave trade, could profit from the importation of Africans to Brazil?a trade that continued until 1856. This paper will explore how these merchants negotiated local and trans-Atlantic politics in the trade in British printed cotton to Brazil during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, through the lens of their correspondence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".