Latin America and the Caribbean: Between the OAS and CELAC
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay aims at analysing the position of Latin America and the Caribbean in its totality as a global player, and the challenges facing CELAC – Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries – as a mechanism of political partnership with its own views on the Organization of American States (OAS). Indeed, CELAC is to some extent presented as a hemispheric mechanism that rivals the OAS and which may eventually replace it, leaving the U.S. and Canada aside. In this regard, a comparison and an assessment of the implications involved will be made. It is therefore useful to pose the following question: Is CELAC the key to structuring an alternative movement to the OAS?Resumen:El motivo de este ensayo consiste en analizar la posición de América Latina y el Caribe en su conjunto como actor global frente al reto que supone la CELAC – Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños – como mecanismo de concertación política y su postura frente la OEA – Organización de Estados Americanos. En efecto, la CELAC se presenta para algunos como un nuevo mecanismo hemisférico que rivaliza con la OEA y que eventualmente podría sustituirla, dejando a un lado a los Estados Unidos y Canadá. En tal sentido, se pretende contrastar y valorar dicha apreciación. Es por ello que resulta útil plantearse la siguiente cuestión: ¿Es la CELAC la clave para estructurar un movimiento alternativo a la OEA?
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it