Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hay poca evidencia de una crisis de la democracia electoral en América Latina, sin embargo muchos regímenes democráticos de la región son inestables. Recientemente, las democracias latinoamericanas han sido amenazadas más por las acciones inconstitucionales e ilegales de líderes elegidos democráticamente que por intentos de golpe de Estado o fraude sistemático electoral. La separación de poderes es a veces violada en forma sutil sin que interrumpa necesariamente la democracia electoral. Tales amenazas han sido inadecuadamente teorizadas en la literatura. Un esfuerzo por teorizar la separación de poderes podría ayudar a la comunidad internacional a vigilar el progreso o la erosión de la democracia en el hemisferio occidental. La agenda propuesta para la evaluación de la democracia está alineada con el argumento de que las instituciones electorales de la democracia requieren un Estado de derecho capaz de respaldar los derechos y las libertades fundamentales de todos los ciudadanos, sin lo cual las democracias latinoamericanas enfrentarían un déficit de ciudadanía insuperable.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".