MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

La realidad de los monumentos arqueológicos en el Perú: una perspectiva desde Tambo Viejo

2023· article· es· W4391076957 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArqueología y Sociedad · 2023
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En el Perú tenemos el privilegio de contar con una enorme riqueza de monumentos arqueológicos que se encuentran dispersos a lo largo y ancho del país. Sin embargo, a lo largo de los tiempos no hemos logrado conocer cómo hacer uso efectivo de esta riqueza, mucho menos cómo preservarla para las futuras generaciones. En su lugar, somos observadores pasivos de cómo los monumentos arqueológicos permanecen en el olvido y en abandono, o en efecto, son arrasados bajo el pretexto del “desarrollo” y “progreso.” Nuestra historia no escrita desaparece frente a nuestros ojos y no tenemos la voluntad siquiera de frenar la destrucción. La historia del sitio arqueológico de Tambo Viejo del valle de Acarí que aquí discuto, posiblemente, también es la historia de muchos otros monumentos arqueológicos, una historia desalentadora y decepcionante. Con la reflexión que aquí se presenta, tal vez se pueda empezar a recapacitar y buscar soluciones que permitan salvaguardar a los sitios arqueológicos. Estoy convencido que podemos hacer más, y debemos hacer más.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.355 · 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