Identity and cultural protection factors in indigenous families: comparative elements between Algonquian (Canada) and Mapuche (Chile) cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo ofrece un retrato comparativo de los factores de protección de las instituciones familiares de dos pueblos originarios. La hipótesis inicial del estudio es que, a pesar de la gran diferencia entre los estilos de vida y las prácticas cotidianas del pueblo algonquino y mapuche, podemos afirmar que existen también similitudes en los factores de protección de la familia, factores que demuestran ser una institución central para la protección y el desarrollo de las culturas de estos dos pueblos. En este sentido, la transmisión de valores, costumbres, rol y crianza de los hijos, así como el alto valor otorgado a la familia y los ancianos son recíprocos para la protección de su identidad y cultura tanto en el pueblo algonquino como en el pueblo mapuche. En conclusión, nos referimos a ciertas recomendaciones dirigidas a profesionales no indígenas que trabajan con familias indígenas. Estas recomendaciones no son exhaustivas, sino un punto de partida que podrían conducir otros estudios.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".