DIVERSIDAD BIOCULTURAL: INNOVANDO EN INVESTIGACIÓN PARA LA CONSERVACIÓN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La conservación de la biodiversidad puede ser más ética y eficaz enfocando simultáneamente la erosión biológica y cultural. Esta idea se encuentra en los postulados funcionales y éticos iniciales de la biología de la conservación. Sin embargo la investigación para la conservación ha enfatizado los inventarios, la cuantificación y la georreferenciación de la diversidad biológica con miras a su utilización. Se le asigna poca relevancia al valor intrínseco de la biodiversidad ante lo cual se hacen llamados a explorar formas apropiadas de “vivir con” la biodiversidad. Esta reflexión responde a ese llamado. Introduce el enfoque biocultural como una perspectiva más comprehensiva para reconocer e investigar las complejas interrelaciones entre procesos ecológicos y dinámicas culturales. Para la investigación se resalta de este enfoque la necesidad de reconocer los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales, al igual que las cosmovisiones que le dan sentido a las prácticas y relaciones que las comunidades establecen con el ambiente. Se explora la base de datos Scienti del período 1991- 2010 en cuanto al registro de investigaciones sobre biodiversidad que involucran conocimiento tradicional y comunidades. Dado el limitado reconocimiento a las contribuciones de las comunidades, se reseñan las principales barreras que encuentra la adopción del enfoque biocultural en investigación. Se proponen premisas éticas orientadas a transformar actitudes y prácticas en investigación que desconocen derechos ancestrales sobre el territorio y el conocimiento, obstaculizan el reconocimiento del valor intrínseco de la biodiversidad, y como resultado impiden garantizar su conservación en un territorio biodiverso, pluriétnico y multicultural. Abstract The conservation of biodiversity may be deemed ethical and more effective by focusing simultaneously on biological and cultural erosion. This idea was in the functional and ethical principles of the initial understanding in conservation biology. However, biological conservation research has emphasized inventories, quantification and georeferencing biodiversity with utilitarian purposes. Such research gives little importance to the intrinsic value of biodiversity provoking calls to explore appropriate ways of “living with” biodiversity. This paper responds to that call. The biocultural approach offers a more comprehensive view to recognize and investigate the complex interrelationships between ecological processes and cultural dynamics. For research, this approach highlights the need to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as the community worldviews that infuse meaning to community practices and relations with the environment. This paper explores biodiversity research data involving traditional knowledge and communities during the period 1991- 2010 in the GroupLac Database. Given the limited recognition to the contributions of communities, this paper outlines the main barriers that the adoption of the biocultural approach faces. The paper proposes ethical guidelines to transform research attitudes and practices that ignore ancestral rights over the territory and traditional knowledge, hinder the recognition of the intrinsic value of biodiversity, and as a result, prevent conservation in a biodiverse, multiethnic and multicultural territory
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".