The Chilean Constitutional Process Narrated Through a Spiral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on an intertwined spatiotemporal weaving of reckoning-repairing-reworlding, this article analyses the constitutional process experienced in Chile between 2019-2023. Inspired by the sociology of image as a methodological tool and following a narrative that takes the shape of a spiral, we examine a series of photographs representing different layers in this ongoing process. In October 2019, the largest demonstrations in Chile’s history sparked long-brewing demands for social and ecological transformation. The unsustainable pressure pushed political parties to call for a constitutional referendum where the population overwhelmingly voted to overturn the charter inherited from Augusto Pinochet’s regime, and so the process of drafting a new text began. Following the rejection of two drafts, the constitutional process is, for now, closed. Yet, we claim that embracing a failure narrative is not only futile, but misleading, and we propose to see these events in terms of their potential for conceptualising and enacting transformative futures. Drawing on decolonial, anti-colonial, and Indigenous scholarship, this essay focuses mainly on 2019’s uprising and the first constitutional process (2021-2022) examining demands for Indigenous transformation – and the possibilities this case offers resistance movements elsewhere and “elsewhen.”
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".