Antropología crítica, antropología compartida y autoetnografía entre los maseualmej de la Sierra Nororiental de Puebla (1984-2015)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I shall sketch here four decades of anthropological research with two maseual organizations. With the Unión de Cooperativas Tosepan, I did, and still do, what is called ‘critical anthropology’, related with their project of social and economic change in the region. I analized socio-cultural themes in function of objectives shared by the anthropologist and the organization. With the Taller de Tradición Oral Totamachilis, we went through a process of shared ethnography, which entailed a deep change in the classical forms of interaction between the anthropologist and the indigenous actors for the production of anthropological knowledge. From the very beginning, we agreed that we would define together the objectives of the research, elaborate the methodology, and publish under double authorship. Through discussions, we would try to reach consensus on the interpretations. After, I will talk about the rise —in the same area—of young maseualmej ethnographers which started producing an original reflection on their language and culture, in relation with their pedagogical and political concerns. This reflection may take the form of a monograph, a dictionary, a tale and, more recently, an audiovisual document or a radio programme.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".