Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poverty studies need to be carried out in new ways since the established ones have not had the support to catalyze policies that eradicate it. So it is, that has increased the number of poor. The objective of this essay proposes a different manner of generating knowledge about poverty. Here it is established that, instead of observing deficiencies, we look at potentialities that support the generation of transdisciplinary alternatives to reconstruct life projects. This document presents a reflective analysis - method used - on the concept of the decolonization of power with the objective of justifying the urgency on the decolonization of the academic knowledge that is cultivated on the poverty. It is considered the need to include the thinking of the poor about how they look at themselves and how they manage to "bullfight" the uncertainty and the social and ecological complexity in which they live. But not to create charity, or paternalistic projects, but so that this procedure is taken as potentialities. Finally, this paper proposes that theory and practice shall be built on an alliance of - erudite and daily knowledge - to form knowledge-generating chains. In order to create solutions "handcrafted, born of a strong sense of community: intercultural and interdisciplinary - based on the pluri-diverse and the multi-universe. This would trigger a new look on poverty, remove adverse labels to place potentialities, strengths and hopes of all those individuals who have survived the grievance and adversity that the one-dimensional vision has imposed.
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 | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".