Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis l'invasion européenne des Andes au XVIe siècle, la langue espagnole s'est imposée comme un instrument d’exercice du pouvoir, subordonnant les langues indigènes. Bien que son utilisation ait d'abord été minoritaire, elle s’est progressivement étendue au fil des siècles jusqu’à devenir la langue majoritaire dans les pays andins actuels tels que le Pérou, la Bolivie et le Chili. Dans ce cadre contextuel, l’article, à partir de trois espaces urbains : Lima, La Paz et Santiago, s’interroge d’abord sur la manière dont les locuteurs conçoivent la diversité des langues et des sociolectes dans la ville, puis sur les caractéristiques linguistiques de l’espagnol qui sont liées à divers aspects du colonialisme et du néocolonialisme. Le cadre théorique s’appuie sur les concepts de pouvoir (Foucault), de pouvoir symbolique (Bourdieu), de colonialité du pouvoir (Quijano, Mignolo), de colonialisme linguistique et de glottophagie (Calvet), ainsi que sur des études sur le contact de l’espagnol avec les langues indigènes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".