Variabilidad del derecho natural y retención de las Indias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hay un aspecto de la famosa disputa que tuvo lugar en los siglos XVI y XVII sobre los justos títulos, que no ha recibido un adecuado tratamiento filosófico. Se trata de la posibilidad de que, en caso de que la conquista hubiese sido injusta, hubiese algún título que permitiera o incluso obligara a la Corona a retener esas tierras. En este artículo se muestra la forma en que este tema fue abordado por Vitoria, el Licenciado Falcón y Solórzano Pereira. El argumento de estos autores, inspirado en la idea aristotélica de que lo justo natural está sujeto a cambio, es que, incluso si se hubiese hecho en contra de la justicia, el abandono de las Indias traería consigo para los nativos más daños que beneficios. Por lo mismo, la potencial obligación de restituir las tierras conquistas cesaría o, al menos, quedaría en suspenso mientras la situación no cambiara sustantivamente.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".