MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117411730 · doi:10.1093/jsh/shad094

Bureaucratic Ambitions and Indigenous Defendants in Nineteenth-Century Huajuapan

2023· article· en· W7117411730 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nora E. Jaffary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social History · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBureaucracyIndigenousState (computer science)Government (linguistics)Local governmentSexual assault

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As was true in many parts of Mexico, judicial prosecutions for reproductive crimes increased in the last third of the nineteenth century in the small communities of Huajuapan, Oaxaca. This article examines why community members and local officials denounced and investigated Indigenous women in these Mixtec communities for the crime of infanticide in this period. It suggests that local bureaucrats empowered by the positions, practices, and procedures of republican government engaged in the policing of the sexual and reproductive practices of women in their communities to publicize their commitment to the functioning of the modern liberal state before the audience of judicial functionaries who occupied positions above them in state government and the judiciary. Ironically, however, this effort often backfired. The Huajuapan cases show that local bureaucrats exhibited greater zeal in their intent to prosecute female community members than did judicial officers who occupied more powerful offices than they and who were further removed geographically from the small rural communities in which the cases originated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.011
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social HistorySame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207