Libertad académica indígena: una aproximación desde los estándares internacionales de derechos humanos y la voz de educadores indígenas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research seeks to answer the following question: to what extent does the right to academic freedom allows Indigenous peoples to impart knowledge in environments free of hostility and threats, and that considers their worldviews and the voices of their educators? The results of this research emphasize that, although international standards establish a right to Indigenous academic freedom, in practice there is no normative clarity regarding this right at the national level, which has allowed for various limitations. First, we analyze the regulatory content of the right to Indigenous academic freedom based on international and inter-American law, examining the concept of academic freedom from the perspective of Indigenous peoples’ rights related to education. Second, we look at the implementation of Indigenous academic freedom at the national level in the regulations and policies of Ecuador, Peru, Panama, and Canada. Third, we collate this information with field interviews with Indigenous educators. The Indigenous perspective provided by this research demonstrates a clear sense of assimilation into Western education systems, an aspect that can be reflected in a suspicious category of discrimination in terms of providing and receiving information specific to Indigenous science.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".