Relación entre derecho indígena y soberanía en las etnias de Norteamérica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las etnias de Norteamérica fueron expulsadas de su territorio por la invasión europea y la mayoría de ellas fueron confinadas en reservaciones. En estas condiciones, las etnias sufrieron la opresión por la sociedad dominante debido a la asimetría de poder. Mediante este artículo se pretende mostrar cómo los pueblos se defendieron a través de su derecho indígena para lograr cierto estatus de soberanía. Para este propósito, se compara esta lucha en los cahuillas de California, los kikapúes de Coahuila y Texas, y los mohawks de Quebec. De esta manera, este trabajo está dividido en la reflexión teórica del concepto de soberanía, la política del Estado y el derecho indígena, y la lucha por la soberanía. Esta última sección analiza la lucha de los cahui llas a través de un proceso legal; la de los kikapúes a través del Kickapoo Trust Land Acquisition Committee, y la de los mohawks en el conflicto Oka. Finalmente, se presentan algunas conclusiones acerca de la sobera nía de las etnias de Norteamérica.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".