Los retos del Estado mexicano ante el reconocimiento de los derechos colectivos: una perspectiva comparada desde el federalismo canadiense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
?Puede el federalismo ser un arreglo efectivo entre ordenes de gobierno para reconocer los derechos colectivos dentro del Estado? Este trabajo busca responder a esta pregunta a partir de un analisis historico y comparativo entre los sistemas federales de Mexico y Canada, asi como de los procesos historicos de negociacion que han tenido con las naciones originarias que albergan dentro de sus fronteras. El caso de Canada es uno de los modelos mas importantes actualmente, ya que ha mantenido un proceso de negociacion y descentralizacion democratico que ha logrado reconocer las diferencias etnicas y culturales. En el caso de Mexico, los resultados se han visto interrumpidos por el autoritarismo politico, la falta de reconocimiento de las identidades etnicas como naciones y la poca flexibilidad del sistema federal para definir nuevas relaciones. El analisis concluye que es necesario promover los cambios constitucionales sugeridos por las naciones indigenas acordados con el gobierno en 1996, asi como promover una nueva ingenieria federal que, como en el caso de Canada, permita nuevos grados de autonomia politica y territorial a las naciones indigenas.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".