Indigenous Struggles and Contested Identities in Argentina Histories of Invisibilization and Reemergence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 HE CONSTITUTION OF Argentina as a nation-state in the late 19th century was based on the systematic attempt to eliminate, silence, or assimilate its indigenous population.The elites of the time defined the idea of "the Argentinean nation" in tension with what they imagined as its opposite: el desierto (the desert), the term then widely used to refer to the territories of the Pampas, Patagonia, and the Gran Chaco inhabited by indigenous groups that resisted, arms-in-hand, the advance of the state.The naming of these places as "deserts" captures the dialectic of civilization and barbarism that mobilized the emergence of this nation-state, for what defined these geographies was not their physical landscape or lack of human populations but their absence of state control, capitalism, and civilization (see Halperin Dongui 1982; Arengo 1996; Wright 1998).By the turn of the 20th century, large military campaigns to Pampa-Patagonia and the Chaco, land expropriation fueling the emergence of an agrarian capitalism, and massive European immigration consolidated the transformation of el desierto into a new nation-state arising from its barbarian prehistory.The forging of the Argentinean nation through its assault on the desert confined indigenous groups to an obscure background within the imagined national community.This situation marked a sharp contrast to other Latin American countries such as Mexico, Peru, or Brazil, where discourses that celebrate the indigenous component of the nation and/or the cultural salience of mestizaje (miscegenation) became crucial components of national ideologies (Bonfil Batalla 1997; de la Cadena 2000;
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".