Villanos de las praderas: los pastores vascos en Estados Unidos y el Movimiento Conservacionista, 1890-1910
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El capítulo analiza cómo, entre 1890 y 1910, los pastores vascos en el Oeste de Estados Unidos fueron construidos como “villanos de las praderas”. En un contexto de expansión ovina, crisis ambiental y choque con la ganadería vacuna, la trashumancia ovina—con fuerte presencia de inmigrantes vascos—fue acusada de sobrepastoreo y erosión. El emergente conservacionismo utilitarista, impulsado por figuras como Gifford Pinchot, legitimó la intervención federal en tierras públicas (Forest Reserve Act 1891, Forest Use Act 1897, Transfer Act 1905) y un régimen de permisos (A/B/C) que priorizó a propietarios establecidos y marginó a pastores itinerantes, muchos de ellos vascos. Prensa, literatura del Oeste y autoridades reforzaron el arquetipo negativo frente al cowboy heroico, usando a los vascos como chivo expiatorio para justificar regulación y tarifas de pastoreo. Pese a arrestos y conflictos (Sierra Nevada, Yosemite), la trashumancia continuó fuera de los Bosques Nacionales hasta la Taylor Grazing Act (1934). Con el tiempo, y por redes de contratación y restricciones migratorias, emergió un estereotipo opuesto: el “buen pastor” vasco, valorado como mano de obra disciplinada, que acabó sustituyendo—sin borrarlo—al imaginario del villano.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".