Autonomía y comunidad: horizonte político de la apropiación tecnológica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En el campo de los Estudios de Ciencia y Tecnología el objetivo político de la apropiación tecnológica se asocia con la democratización de los procesos de diseño y desarrollo tecnológico, a través de procesos deliberativos. En el presente articulo se lleva a cabo una crítica a dicho horizonte a través de una argumentación filosófica que busca plantear alternativas a dicho horizonte en el contexto latinoamericano. El articulo explora las nociones de democracia radical, autonomía y comunidad dentro del horizonte comunitario-popular como formas alternativas de entender la dimensión política de la apropiación tecnológica. El articulo argumenta que esta alternativa política desplaza la apropiación tecnológica hacia un ámbito colectivo y hacia practicas reproductivas de lo viviente. El articulo concluye con algunos ejemplos de dicho horizonte, dados dentro de los espacios alternativos de tecnología que han surgido en las últimas décadas en la región.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".