Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of legal anthropology has widely debated Indigenous Peoples’ justice practices. However, the legal perspective of sexual offenses remains understudied. In this respect, this paper depicts the Arhuaco people's justice system, from the spiritual and political entities to the procedure, and sanctions, touching upon how the homogenized society influences Indigenous People’s justice in Arhuaco society. Furthermore, this work explores how the Arhuaco people resolve cases in which community members are allegedly responsible for committing sexual crimes. It also highlights some challenges connected to raising this type of offense and its lack of trust in authorities, disregard for the victim's version, and the difficulty of verifying these cases. During the fieldwork in the Arhuaco territory, the applied method follows some parameters of the procedural paradigm-legal conscience studies as an interpretive framework to understand how the Arhuaco women conceive the legal phenomenon. As a result, this study offers some insights into the Arhuaco women's perceptions of justice, specifically concerning sexual abuse cases. Such a perception is analyzed based on the Arhuaco women's political position, cultural and lineage origin, illustrating how they constantly go through inter-legality practices to claim justice for sexual offenses.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".