Los juegos y deportes tradicionales declarados como Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial: alternativa legítima en el caso de los pueblos amazónicos del Ecuador/Traditional games and sports declared as Intangible Cultural Heritage: a legitimate alternative...
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the practice of traditional games and sports has been losing prominence in society. Therefore, one of the strategies is to convert them into National Intangible Cultural Heritage. The objective of this work was to reflect on the importance of the diverse antecedents on the declaration of Traditional Games and Sports as Intangible Cultural Heritage as a valid alternative to be applicable to the case of the Amazonian peoples of Ecuador. A review of the scientific literature was carried out by means of a bibliographic search of the literature, selection criteria and evaluation of the quality of the selected articles. Traditional games and sports considered intangible cultural heritage contribute to the identity and sense of belonging of the community, region or country. They also have an impact on the tourism sector through the exhibition of recreational and sporting practices. Several countries consider a traditional sport as Intangible Cultural Heritage, as is the case of field hockey in Canada, palín in Chile, pelota in Mexico and Guatemala, Canary Island wrestling, Basque pelota, Valencian pelota and the Aragonese bar toss in Spain, and the fish race in France. In the Ecuadorian context, there are studies that are limited to addressing the concept of traditional games and sports and their typology by region. So far, sporting events have been held at the national level with the aim of promoting the practice of recreational and sporting activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".