MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610167096 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v33i3.4888

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES OF THE SOUTH: INDIGENOUS WATER RIGHTS IN CHILE - ANOTHER STEP IN THE “CIVILIZING MISSION?

2017· article· en· W2610167096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amaya Álvez Marín

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondo de Financiamiento de Centros de Investigación en Áreas PrioritariasComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaCentro de Recursos Hídricos para la Agricultura y la MineríaUniversidad de ConcepciónFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsIndigenousConstitutionPolitical scienceSovereigntyArgument (complex analysis)ColonialismRealmLawScholarshipInternational lawHuman rightsSubject (documents)Indigenous rightsSociologyLaw and economicsPolitical economyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the struggles of indigenous rights based on the adoption of the 1980 Chilean Constitution, under an authoritarian frame, that resulted in water being considered as a commodity and, therefore, subject to radical market rules that serves as a relevant local example in conflict with ratified international treaties. The argument proposes a critical approach to establish a continuum of the recurring rejection of the ancestral beliefs of Indigenous People since colonial times. In light of the actual constituent process for drafting a new constitution in Chile (2015), the article evaluates the emancipatory potential of Chile’s early sovereignty proposal on natural resources and later articulations of water as a human right. The argument assesses the possibility of including alternative views in the constituent debate over water, under the light of Third World Approaches to International Law [TWAIL] and Latin American International Law [LAIL] legal scholarship, aiming to find space in the Chilean constitutional realm for non-extractive perspectives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.031
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesFrench-language works237,207