Religion and politics in land takeovers in Mexico: new dimensions of “classical” social movements?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within Latin American contemporary studies, the ties between religion and politics seem to be informed by certain presuppositions: religion is tied either to the question of poverty or to the weakening of the State, bringing with it the possibility of supplanting politics with religion. However, during the last 15 years, many “classical” and non-religious Latin American social movements such as land takeovers and peasant movements in Brazil, Paraguay, or Mexico have incorporated religious dimensions in their repertories of collective action. In order to assess whether these new religious aspects affect socio-political dimensions and practices in these traditionally non-overtly religious social movements, this article examines the case of Mexican land takeovers (invasiones) that have been occurring since 1998 in various regions suffering from extreme poverty. Through discourse analysis of interviews and life stories, and analysis of new religious practices, this article shows the existence of a collective miracle phenomenon, present in all of the cases of land takeovers that were observed in Mexico. It seeks to determine whether this collective miracle discourse and new religious practices interfere with more socio-political dimensions and what the result is on collective action in Mexico, taking into account the particular historical background of religion and politics in this country.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".