MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598481836 · doi:10.1080/08263663.2014.978152

Mid-twentieth-century Guatemalan modernism and the anesthetic of progress

2014· article· fr· W1598481836 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Kirkpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Society in Latin America
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyPoliticsModernism (music)TeleologySociologyUniversality (dynamical systems)Motif (music)Cold warAestheticsHistoryEnvironmental ethicsPolitical economyLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses Guatemala City’s Centro Cívico as a point of departure to consider the wider implications of shared Western epistemological assumptions during the Cold War. It argues that an “esthetic of progress”, based on notions of economic development as well as teleological beliefs about historical change, became a dominant artistic motif in mid-twentieth-century Guatemalan modernism, emblematic of the artists belonging to the Generation of 1940. Owing to the homogenizing tendencies of the idea of progress and its universality within Guatemalan politics, however, the article suggests that the esthetic of progress also possessed anesthetic qualities that muted its political importance. In so doing, the work of the Generation of 1940 appealed to a wide variety of political actors and the “anesthetic of progress” helps to explain why the Centro Cívico project was conceived and constructed by governments of opposing ideological convictions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.018
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbesSame topicPolitics and Society in Latin AmericaFrench-language works237,207