INTEGRACION DE LOS SISTEMAS DE CONOCIMIENTO INDIGENA EN LA PLANIFICACION URBANA Y REGIONAL: UNA REVISION CRITICA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este estudio exploró la relación entre los Sistemas de Conocimiento Indígena (SCI) y el territorio, subrayando la exclusión de dichos conocimientos en la planificación y gestión territorial. Mediante una revisión crítica de 59 artículos científicos en español, portugués e inglés, se analizaron tres conceptos clave: Sistemas de Conocimiento Indígena, Servicios Ecosistémicos y Placemaking. Los hallazgos destacaron tres obstáculos principales para la integración de los SCI: diferencias culturales y de comunicación, herencia colonial y la falta de enfoques interdisciplinares y políticas inclusivas. No obstante, los casos de Australia y Canadá ofrecieron modelos de integración que reconocieron y valoraron los conocimientos indígenas, promoviendo la protección legal, la transmisión y la participación de comunidades indígenas en la gestión territorial. Finalmente, el estudio identificó lagunas en la investigación, tales como la falta de estudios comparativos y modelos replicables, sugiriendo áreas futuras para el fortalecimiento de los SCI en la gobernanza territorial.
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 | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".