Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume is a major contribution to a growing body of literature that questions the assumptions of market reforms undertaken in Latin America in recent decades, on the basis that market reforms did not deliver on their basic promise: rapid economic growth. Indeed, even when we take into account the recent period of exceptional conditions in international commodity and capital markets that has facilitated rapid growth in Latin America since 2004, the rate of GDP growth in the region has been 3.3 percent from 1990 to 2007 (and only 2.5 percent if the point of reference is 1980), far short of that achieved during the phase of import-substitution industrialization—or, as I prefer to call it, state-led industrialization—when Latin America grew at an average rate of 5.5 percent a year. Another set of criticisms relates, of course, to the disappointing social effects of market reforms. Again, a simple reflection of this fact is that only in 2005 did Latin America return to the poverty levels of 1980—i.e., the region experienced not a decade, but a quarter century lost in terms of poverty reduction. The volume concentrates on one of the major aspects of the globalization and liberalization processes: the growing role played by multinational corporations (MNCs) and the opening up of the Latin American economies to foreign direct investment (FDI). Drawing on case studies from about half of the countries in the region, it explores the determinants of FDI, the role that it has played in advancing environmental sustainability, and some political economy issues associated with such investments.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.510 | 0.467 |
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".