MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Fujimori's Peru: Deception in the Public Sphere</i> by Catherine M. Conaghan

2008· article· en· W1994583528 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment and Change · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeceptionLatin AmericansCitationLibrary sciencePublic sphereMedia studiesSociologyHistoryPolitical scienceLawComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How can poor countries achieve economic development and surmount poverty?For many years poor countries saw state-led, import-substitution industrialization as the solution.That changed in the 1980s when debilitating economic failure forced them to seek assistance from rich countries.As a condition for assistance, the latter, acting through the international financial institutions, enjoined struggling nations to adopt freewheeling capitalism and wide open global trade, insisting that it was the only path to development.Although this view has dominated development practice since the 1980s, its efficacy is dubious.Scholars associated with the 'developmental state' school have long argued that the belief that the now developed countries 'made it' via free trade is a myth.One of these scholars, Ha-Joon Chang, a professor at Cambridge University, examines neoliberal economic canons in Bad Samaritans, noting that the set of economic policy measures prescribed for developing countries by developed ones contradict their own path to success.He stresses the irony that developed countries did not pursue such policies when they were climbing the economic ladder of success.Rather, they employed high tariffs and sectoral industrial policies, infant industry protection, export subsidies, discrimination against foreign investors, etc. -all practices to which they now object.They have thus 'rewritten their own histories to make them more consistent with how they see themselves today, rather than as they really were' (p.16).Drawing on a large body of studies and writing with force and erudition, Chang convincingly shows that Britain and the USA -the supposed homes of free tradein fact protected infant industries until such time that their industries were in a position to compete globally.Only when Britain, the first country to industrialize, had attained industrial superiority did it promote free trade.Similarly, once the USA, long the most ardent practitioner and the intellectual home of protectionism had attained absolute industrial supremacy through the nationalistic use of heavy protectionism, it too advocated free trade.Practically all developed countries, to varying degrees, sheltered infant industries from global competition until they 'caught-up' with more technologically advanced nations.Moreover, during their economic ascent, they ignored patent rights and engaged in industrial pirating and espionage, and decried as hypocritical those who, having achieved progress through protective duties and restrictions, turned around to promote free trade.Friedrich List, the German economist, gained fame for likening Britain's promotion of free trade to 'kicking away the ladder' by which it had risen to deprive others of the means of climbing up, and this sentiment resonated widely.Chang uses the rise of the newly-industrializing countries of East Asia to accentuate the myth of free trade.In contrast to the World Bank's discredited attribution of the ascendance of the East Asian NICs to orthodox, neoliberal economic policy measures,

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.178 · 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