La exposición en los museos de sitio como herramienta de sensibilización al patrimonio arqueológico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los sitios arqueológicos, testigos materiales del tiempo y de las culturas del pasado, son portadores de informaciones históricas únicas y tienen un inestimable valor simbólico y científico. A pesar de que numerosos sitios arqueológicos son conocidos y documentados en América latina, muchos de ellos han sido destruidos o saqueados debido a los pillajes. El museo de sitio arqueológico contextualiza los objetos y desempeña un papel esencial en su salvaguardia y conservación garantizando la integridad de los bienes culturales, tangibles e intangibles. ¿Por lo tanto, cómo puede la exposición del museo de sitio sensibilizar a la población local y a los visitantes sobre la importancia de la conservación del patrimonio arqueológico? A fin de responder a esta cuestión, estudiamos diferentes registros de mediación de la arqueología en tres exposiciones de museos de sitio: Chan Chan (Peru), Huacas de Moche (Peru) et Templo Mayor (Mexique).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".