La voix des femmes autochtones sur les débats entre droits individuels et droits collectifs au Mexique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les années 1990 marquent un tournant important dans le discours de l’État mexicain sur la nation et font place à un nouveau discours multiculturel. Dans ce contexte ont lieu des négociations importantes entre le mouvement autochtone et l’État pour définir les termes de la reconnaissance à travers les demandes d’autonomie. Des positions divergentes émergent quant à l’implication de la reconnaissance des droits collectifs sur les droits humains et, en particulier, vis-à-vis des droits des femmes. Si les positions de l’État et du mouvement autochtone ont reçu une attention considérable, la perspective des femmes autochtones a reçu, quant à elle, bien peu d’attention. Cherchant à appuyer cet effort récent, nous proposons de considérer les perspectives construites depuis le mouvement des femmes autochtones au Mexique comme une alternative au débat opposant droits individuels et droits collectifs et contribuer aux réflexions théoriques sur la question des minorités internes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".