MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2008· article· en· W1994583528 on OpenAlexaff
Liisa North

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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

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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment and ChangeSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207