Ontologías poéticas diferenciadas en la literatura amerindia : “Braconaje” y decolonialidad.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo aborda la poesía amerindia contemporánea a partir de las teorías decoloniales latinoamericanas y examina poemas de dos poetas indígenas: Ariruma Kowii (Ecuador) y Humbert Ak’abal (Guatemala). Primero, se explora el fenómeno literario indígena con los conceptos de heterogeneidad (Antonio Cornejo Polar), colonialidad (Anibal Quijano y Walter Mignolo) y “braconaje” (Simon Harel). Luego, se problematiza la poesía de los dos autores a partir del uso de las lenguas amerindias junto con el castellano y del estatuto del texto que puede interpretarse en su pluralidad semiótica a partir del concepto de semiosis (Walter Mignolo). Finalmente, se muestra cómo los dos autores demuestran una ontología poética propia enraizada en la tradición oral y la cosmovisión de su pueblo. Ese recorrido a través de la poesía de los dos autores demuestra que la poesía indígena contemporánea se inscribe en la decolonialidad del saber.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".