Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen. Este trabajo, basado en dos temporadas de investigación en Canadá (en 1995 y 2002), debe entenderse como el ejercicio de entender la etnología indígena que se hace en Canadá a través del prisma de la etnología que se hace en Brasil. Se inspira en la propuesta del profesor Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira de estudiar los estilos de las antropologías periféricas, esto es, aquellas antropologías de los países al margen de los centros metropolitanos de la disciplina —EE. UU., Inglaterra y Francia—, donde la antropología, en tanto disciplina científica y académica, surgió y se consolidó. El artículo se concentra en la etnología indígena a partir de una comparación, apoyada ésta en el hecho de que tanto en Canadá como en Brasil fueron estudiados pueblos indígenas sobre cuyos territorios se expandió el estado nacional. Abstract. This article, based on two research surveys carried out in Canada (in 1995 and in 2002), was written within the theme on ethnology with indigenous peoples done in Canada examined through the prism of ethnology with indigenous peoples done in Brazil. It was inspired on the proposal of Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira to study the styles of peripheral anthropologies, that is to say, those anthropologies situated in countries which are in the periphery of the metropolitan centres of the disciplne —the USA, England, and France— where Anthropology originally emerged and was consolidated as a scientific discipline. The article focuses ethnology with indigenous peoples from a comparison made from the fact that in Canada, as in Brazil, ethnology with indigenous peoples studies peoples over whose lands the national state has expanded.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".