Conflictividad socioambiental en América Latina y el Caribe: un análisis del panorama regional desde la ecología política
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has been characterized as \na thriving region in terms of receiving foreign investment and developing megaprojects for \nthe use and commodification of natural resources. This scenario has deepened the already \nexisting conflictive relationships between civil society and the ‘development promoters’, due \nto a series of disputes over the meanings, discourses and worldviews about natural resources \nin particular, and about the relationship between nature and society in general. The present \nwork analyzes the regional panorama from the lenses of political ecology, and through the \nsystematization of the existing information in the Environmental Justice Atlas. A major finding \nis that more than a quarter (28,88%) of the global socio-environmental conflicts (3,244) occurs \nin LAC (937). Of this world total, mining conflicts in the region represent 10% (324 conflicts). \nThe analysis carried out made it possible to identify a series of trends in relation to the ways in \nwhich global economic logic materializes and advances in the subjugation and commodification of nature in the region.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".