Repensando la Construcción y los Abordajes del Espacio Mapuche en Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La pregunta inicial que nos interpelaba en el panel "¿Geografías indígenas en Chile?Oportunidades, responsabilidades y desafíos", sobre cómo o por qué del surgimiento de las geografías indígenas en Chile, me obligó a pensar en las razones de la vacancia respecto de la temática indígena en la disciplina geográfica en Argentina.Y me obligó también a ver muchos trabajos de geógrafos que en algún momento, sobre todo trabajando con cartografías, mostraban algunas presencias indígenas, que geolocalizaban entregas de tierras o que mapeaban a grupos indígenas con reconocimientos estatales, aunque éstas en su mayoría quedaban relegadas a principios del siglo XIX y después, paulatinamente, iban desapareciendo como actores en los distintos estudios.Me refiero a trabajos de geógrafos contemporáneos, pues existen crónicas de viajeros, militares o enviados de los Estados argentino y chileno que registraron y, en algunos casos, elaboraron cartografías durante el siglo XIX con diversos fines, entre ellos, Guillermo Cox (1863), George Musters (1871), y
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".