Setenta anos depois das investigações de Oswald Menghin e Marcelo Bórmida nas cavernas de Tandilia: O início da miragem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1950, Oswald Menghin y Marcelo Bórmida publican en la revista Runa los resultados de sus primeras investigaciones en la región pampeana, en la Gruta del Oro en el sistema serrano de Tandilia. En base a muy pocos artefactos líticos y haciendo correlaciones paleoclímaticas a larga distancia propusieron para la región la existencia hacia el 5000 a. C. de un complejo cultural epiprotolítco de cazadores inferiores al que llamaron Tandilense. Este trabajo dio origen a toda una serie de investigaciones arqueológicas en la región fuertemente alineadas con el paradigma histórico-cultural austro alemán. El artículo fue la piedra basal de una corriente teórica que dominaría la Arqueología pampeana durante los siguientes treinta años. En este ensayo se resumen y discuten los hallazgos y las interpretaciones de Menghin y Bórmida sobre los materiales de la Gruta del Oro y se analiza el contexto teórico y político para explicar por qué, el modelo propuesto por Menghin y Bórmida fue dominante hasta la década de 1980.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".