Minería y glaciares rocosos: impactos ambientales, antecedentes políticos y legales, y perspectivas futuras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El interés científi co y político en los glaciares rocosos andinos ha aumentado fuertemente en los últimos años debido al creciente reconocimiento de su importancia hidrológica y las recientes intervenciones mineras en ellos.Se presenta un resumen de los conocimientos científi cos y el marco político-legal de las intervenciones pasadas y actuales en glaciares rocosos en Chile y, en forma preliminar, en Argentina y Perú.En estos países, 26 faenas mineras han afectado glaciares rocosos o podrían posiblemente intervenirlos en el futuro.Hasta la fecha, el área afectada de glaciares rocosos en Chile es de aproximadamente 3,3 km 2 .Se recomienda ampliar el actual debate sobre intervenciones en glaciares rocosos, basado en la actualidad principalmente en argumentos hidrológicos, para tomar en cuenta peligros ambientales en el largo plazo -como la posible inestabilidad de glaciares rocosos con depósitos mineros-como también la amplia gama de servicios ambientales brindados por los glaciares rocosos.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".