MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

El necropoder del imperio de la ley: la gestión de la muerte en el primer mundo norteamericano

2023· article· es· W4323353993 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ariadna Estévez

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Sociológica · 2023
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El artículo desarrolla las nociones de necropoder del imperio de la ley y la gubernamentalización necropolítica del Estado como formas específicas de necropoder en América del Norte. A partir de la gubernamentalidad de Achille Mbembe y Michel Foucault, la investigadora afirma que en países del tercer mundo como México, el poder estatal se entrelaza con las organizaciones criminales. La fusión del Estado criminal da como resultado instituciones y políticas para la administración de la muerte, lo que a su vez conduce a la reproducción de la acumulación ilegal de capital, la gubernamentalización necropolítica del Estado. Además, basándose en interpretaciones diversas del necropoder en el primer mundo, la autora sostiene que Estados Unidos y Canadá imponen su poder soberano de matar no por encima o por debajo de la ley, sino a través de ella. Los países del primer mundo de América del Norte utilizan marcos legales para acumular capital a través de actividades que producen muerte en geografías y espacios específicos a partir de nacionalidad, etnia, raza, clase y género. El capítulo llama a éste necropoder del imperio de la ley. El terreno común en ambos tipos de necropoder es la muerte lucrativa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa SociológicaSame topicWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesFrench-language works237,207