MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620548811 · doi:10.35305/prcs.v0i2.258

A 50 años del Alegato Ruda.

2016· article· es· W2620548811 on OpenAlexaff
M Andrés Troncoso, María Lis Rolandi

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectivas Revista de Ciencias Sociales · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations in Latin America
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En el siguiente ensayo se propone analizar la situación de las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur, Sándwich del Sur y los Espacios Marítimos Circundantes (en adelante “Cuestión Malvinas”), con el objetivo de realizar una reflexión acerca de los procesos de descolonización, a través de la Resolución 2065 de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, expuesta por el Embajador argentino José Ruda, donde se fundamenta el legítimo derecho de la Argentina sobre las islas, basado en razones históricas, jurídicas y geográficas, conjuntamente se indaga sobre la importancia de las islas Malvinas en el espacio latinoamericano y organismos multilaterales. La “Cuestión Malvinas” es para la Argentina una política de Estado, además a lo largo de estos años de legítimo reclamo ha recibido el apoyo de los países latinoamericanos, así como de la comunidad internacional en general y de importantes organismos internacionales que bregan por la resolución pacífica del diferendo. En la presente investigación se analizará la “Cuestión Malvinas” desde la complejidad, basada en la intervinculación de un conjunto de disciplinas y temáticas, intentando realizar un abordaje integral donde se visualicen los ejes político, recursos naturales, aspectos geopolíticos, marco jurídico, económico e integración y apoyo regional.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectivas Revista de Ciencias SocialesSame topicInternational Relations in Latin AmericaFrench-language works237,207