ARQUEOLOGIA DE CONTRATO, COLONIALISMO INTERNO E POVOS INDÍGENAS NO BRASIL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No presente artigo, o autor analisa as relações entre Arqueologia de Contrato, colonialismo interno e povos indígenas no Brasil desde a década de 1990 até o tempo presente. A discussão está baseada em estudos desenvolvidos na região Centro-Oeste, especialmente no estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Nesta parte do país ocorrem várias formas de violação dos direitos de povos originários, como a usurpação de territórios tradicionais. Em um contexto assim, a Arqueologia de Contrato tem sido utilizada para o licenciamento socioambiental de empreendimentos que afetam o território e a dinâmica da vida de muitas comunidades indígenas. Além disso, tem sido recorrida no Judiciário para a produção de estudos inconsistentes, do tipo junk science, em defesa dos interesses de setores que são contrários à regularização de territórios indígenas nesta parte da América do Sul.Palavras-chave: Arqueologia do colonialismo; arqueologia de contratono Brasil; direitos indígenas; colonialismo interno; povos indígenas noBrasil.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".