Qué, cómo y cuánto se escribe en los documentos de la burocracia judicial para “menores”, en la ciudad de Buenos Aires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este artículo presento y analizo las expresiones escritas en determinados documentos de una burocracia judicial, que revelan maneras particulares del quehacer institucional y muestran evaluaciones morales y decisiones construidas a partir de y en la interacción entre los agentes judiciales y los casos específicos, mostrando cómo se construyen los informes que integran los expedientes referidos a jóvenes acusados de delitos. Procuro dar cuenta de la construcción de esos registros escritos a partir de mi trabajo de campo desarrollado durante los años 2012 y 2013 en la secretaría tutelar de un juzgado penal de menores, en la ciudad de Buenos Aires. Entonces, observé la traducción de lo oral e interactivo a lo escrito y fijo. Focalizaré mi descripción etnográfica en los valores, representaciones, lenguajes y categorías institucionales que moldean las narrativas de esos informes, abordados como un género literario burocrático que constituye una forma específica de construir culpabilidades o exculpaciones sobre esas personas acusadas de un delito.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".