CPLE et protocoles de consultation autochtones au Brésil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de l’étude comparée de deux cas de protocoles de consultation autochtones brésiliens (les Protocoles juruna et munduruku), cet article entend documenter le phénomène en retraçant l’émergence et les usages de ces protocoles par les acteurs en place, afin d’en souligner non seulement la portée juridique, mais aussi politique. Ainsi, et c’est ce que la comparaison permet de mettre en lumière, même si les avancées et les défis des protocoles de consultation communautaires autochtones du Brésil sont en théorie similaires, on observe en réalité une grande variation au regard de leurs trajectoires d’émergence et de mise en oeuvre. La comparaison proposée montre qu’une analyse située contextuellement qui met la focale sur les stratégies et les pratiques des acteurs peut être plus fructueuse afin de comprendre, en pratique, comment opèrent les mécanismes d’appropriation de la norme de CLPE et leur mise en oeuvre.
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 | 0.210 | 0.308 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".