Alternatives and Resistance in Latin America: Methodological Errors, Pressures, and the Struggle Going Forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of progressive social movements has been rife with gains and losses that have not impeded the development of neoliberal globalization. This paper will reflect upon a series of case study social movements and revolutionary organizations emanating from the Latin American political space. The intention is to reflect upon past and present tactics, strategies, and orientations of these groups to demonstrate differing methods for achieving social change. This paper takes the position that key class factors that project at sub-state, state, and international levels needs to be taken into account in fermenting long-lasting and broadly encompassing social change. The interdisciplinary nature of International Studies allows for a vigorous glimpse into the multidimensional factors that have led to stagnation, and in some cases failure, in left-wing movements. L’histoire des mouvements sociaux progressistes est pleine de gains et de pertes qui n’ont pas entrave le developpement de la mondialisation neo-liberale. Cet essai explore une serie d’etudes de cas des mouvements sociaux et des organisations revolutionnaires provenant de l’espace politique de l’Amerique latine. L’intention est de refleter sur les tactiques, les strategies et la direction du passe et du present de ces groupes afin de demontrer des differentes methodes pour realiser un changement social. Cet essai maintien que les facteurs cles lies a la classe sociale qui projettent au niveau sous-etatique, etatique et international doivent etre pris en compte afin de fermenter des changements sociaux durables et cernants. La nature interdisciplinaire des etudes internationales permet un apercu dans les facteurs multidimensionnels qui ont mene a la stagnation, et dans certains cas, la faillite des mouvements de gauche.
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 | 0.167 | 0.217 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".