La participación indígena como camino a la decolonialidad en un mundo en desarrollo: una lectura desde la jurisprudencia constitucional en Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although development is a complex economic, social, cultural, and political process aimed at the constant improvement and well-being of the entire population, in many cases, it is equated with economic growth only. Focusing exclusively on this type of development, contributes to the strengthening of the economic growth of dominant economies and dismisses the local needs and knowledge of the indigenous peoples in the territory where these development projects are implemented. Based on this perspective, the concept of development becomes a discursive instrument that reflects the evolution from physical colonialism to the coloniality of power. This paper illustrates how in dominant judgments of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, indigenous participation might be a pathway to decoloniality. To reach this conclusion, this paper is divided into three sections: the first examines the concept of good living1 as one of the most significant development expressions of indigenous identity; the second analyzes the notion of good living regarding the concepts of coloniality and development; the third discusses prior consultation and free, prior, and informed consent as fundamental rights and social processes that play a decolonial role in indigenous communities in Colombia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".