Salamanca and the city: culture credits, nature credits, and the modern moral economy of indigenous Bolivia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article draws on fieldwork carried out in a Guaraní‐speaking community in the Bolivian Chaco – Isoso – between 1997 and 2000. At the time, some Isoseño people were employed in urban‐headquartered projects that revolved around Isoso’s environment, culture, or identity and that were funded multilaterally by grants, loans, or other foreign aid. The article describes a set of fantastic discourses circulating in rural Isoso that seem to compare a magical place called Salamanca to the city where some Isoseño people now work. The article argues that these Salamanca discourses are an Isoseño‐specific way of talking about a general set of unprecedented processes. It takes up the fact that undertakings of the kind in which the Isoseño are involved create new calibrations among radically different systems for moral/qualitative and material/ quantitative evaluation which can most ‘economically’ be expressed in terms of credit and debt. Finally, it considers why it is that for all their strange magic, Isoseño ‘Salamanca and the city’ discourses put an extremely recognizable suite of moral considerations at their centre.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".