MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734480560 · doi:10.22456/1982-6524.72435

LUGAR-PENSAMENTO INDÍGENA E AGÊNCIA DE HUMANOS E NÃO-HUMANOS (A PRIMEIRA MULHER E A MULHER CÉU EMBARCAM NUMA TURNÊ PELO MUNDO EUROPEU!)

2017· article· pt· W2734480560 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Watts-Powless

Bibliographic record

VenueEspaço Ameríndio · 2017
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Studies in Latin America
Canadian institutionsCanadian Water NetworkUniversity of VictoriaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Esse artigo irá examinar, desde de um ponto de vista indígena, como a agência circula através de mundos humano e não-humano na criação e manutenção da sociedade. Através de processos de colonização, a corrupção das categorias essenciais de concepção indígena do mundo (feminino e território) resultou na descontinuidade da manifestação da agência nas sociedades indígenas. Através de uma comparação entre o divisor epistemológico-ontológico e a concepção indígena de Lugar-Pensamento, esse artigo argumentará que a agência foi erroneamente tornada uma exclusividade dos humanos, removendo assim a agência não-humana do que constitui uma sociedade. Isso foi alcançado, em parte, através da ‘mitologização’ das histórias indígenas de origem e da separação da comunicação, da formalização de tratados e acordos históricos que os seres humanos mantiveram com o mundo animal, o mundo dos céus, o mundo dos espíritos e etc. Para se operacionalizar, o colonialismo deve tentar colocar em descrédito os povos indígenas e suas histórias. Esse artigo tenta reafirmar a conexão sagrada entre lugar, não-humanos e humanos num esforço por alcançar a “mente pré-colonial”.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.039
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEspaço AmeríndioSame topicIndigenous Studies in Latin AmericaFrench-language works237,207