De Teorías, Metodologías y Prácticas para la Paz.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los retos que se presentan en el mundo en materia de paz, prevencion y resolucion de conflictos por medios noviolentos, adquieren una complejidad cada vez mas sorprendente por la multiplicidad de factores involucrados en dichos temas. Desde la definicion de sus conceptos desde un paradigma y una epistemologia de la paz hasta la metodologia para implementar en forma constructiva y eficaz los procesos de paz con el objetivo de fomentar una cultura de paz. Es por tanto que cada vez mas, la teoria, que en cierto modo es la abstraccion de la realidad, debera estar constantemente sujeta a evaluarse, probarse, y modificarse a la luz de la realidad de las practicas. La teoria integral de la Educacion para la Paz de H.B Danesh asi como la teoria compleja constructiva de la Paz de Johan Galtung, seran expuestas asi como se manifestara su pertinencia y vigencia en cuanto a la realidad de las practicas. Se tomara en cuenta el caso de educacion para la paz en Bosnia y Herzegovina. Problematica y contexto 1 Lozano Garza, Narcedalia (2011). De Teorias, Metodologias y Practicas para la Paz. www.lapaz.org.mx, La investigadora es alumna del Doctorado en Ciencias Politicas de la Universidad de McGill y es becaria Vanier en Canada. 2 El presente trabajo constituye solo el planteamiento de un trabajo de investigacion que se encuentra actualmente en desarrollo.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".