Derechos humanos electorales: el caso Yatama contra el Estado de Nicaragua, análisis desde la perspectiva del sistema electoral costarricense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo analiza, en su primera parte, los antecedentes y el proceso que, desde el punto de vista del derecho electoral, expuso la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en la resolución dictada en el caso del partido político indígena YATAMA contra el Estado de Nicaragua al no permitirse su participación en las elecciones municipales del 2000. La segunda parte del artículo efectúa un examen de la normativa costarricense a la luz de las violaciones detectadas por la Corte, en punto a establecer si una sentencia de ese tipo podría o no haber tenido lugar en el contexto institucional y normativo costarricense. Finalmente se realiza un análisis de las particularidades que distinguen el régimen electoral nicaragüense y costarricense, concretamente en cuanto a sus tribunales electorales, a fin de concluir como un conflicto de ese tipo podría haber sido resuelto a lo interno en Costa Rica evitándose, en principio, un fallo como el dictado en el caso YATAMA.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".