DESARROLLO DE LA JURISPRUDENCIA EN CHILE SOBRE LA CONSULTA INDÍGENA: LOS CASOS DEL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL Y LA CORTE SUPREMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo realiza un análisis crítico de la jurisprudencia desarrollada por la Corte Constitucional y la Corte Suprema de Chile en relación con el derecho a la consulta de los pueblos indígenas consagrado en el Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo. En el caso de la Corte Constitucional se notan ciertas deficiencias con respecto a la naturaleza y el alcance de la consulta de los pueblos indígenas, caracterizando este derecho por debajo de los estándares internacionales, limitándolo básicamente a un proceso recopilatorio de opiniones. En el caso de la Corte Suprema, el artículo describe las decisiones del máximo tribunal chileno, quien ha interpretado el derecho a la consulta de manera muy diferente. En varias ocasiones, este tribunal ha asimilado la consulta a mecanismos de participación ciudadana y en otras este ha reconocido un proceso autónomo, en este sentido más apegado a los estándares internacionales.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".