Invisibilized creativity: Sociogenesis of an “innovation” process developed by cartoneros for post-consumption waste recycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike the private companies that runs the waste collection system, the recovery and classification of waste carried out by cartoneros (waste pickers) in Buenos Aires metropolis has not yet been acknowledged as a “public service” (one of the main demands of cartonero organizations). Their work is based on the commercialization of recovered materials for the local and global recycling industry in a market defined by high levels of intermediation and incidence of monopolies in price formation. Consequently, levels of profitability attained in this first link of the chain are extremely meager, hence the importance of achieve value-adding issues becomes key for strengthen the economies of their organizations. Moreover, some public policy actions were oriented to address this goal by a so called process of "technification" of their working process. However, the results obtained so far, were not encouraging at all. Over more than a decade of the emergence of the cartonero phenomenon in Argentina, the technological features of their job have not shown significant changes. Most of them still focus on collecting and sorting as main activities, using very analyzes an “innovation” process developed by members of a cartonero cooperative in the Greater Buenos Aires. The project involves the recycling of industrial cellulose waste for manufacturing bricks and plates for housing construction. The core of my argument can be synthesized in the following question: what happens when an “innovation” process does not come from the contribution of specialized “technicians”, but responds to an experimental practice developed by the cartoneros themselves?. This shift at the level of the socially legitimate locus to produce “innovation” is analytically revealing for examining the contradictory dynamics in the construction of social relations deployed in this experience, focusing mainly on the tensions present in the institutionalization of the ongoing creative process.rudimentary tools and machines and obtaining a small profit if we consider the hard work they make on a daily basis. Departing from an ethnographic approach this article reconstructs and
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".