Human Security, Democracy, and Development in the Americas: the Washington Consensus Redux?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human security has become a component of the international foreign policy coherence consensus, together with political liberalization and neoliberal economic policy. Although the human security paradigm, concerned as it is with fragile states and internal conflict, has had little currency for Latin America as compared to Africa, it is being applied to Haiti. The alternative paradigm for understanding Latin America since the end of the Cold War has been that of democratic transition, but the distance between the two may not be as great as often assumed: both paradigms see increasing social exclusion as signalling an alarm in the region. In the context of the “war on terror,” human security is increasingly redefined in practice as part of a broader hard security agenda; this is illustrated by Canada's international policy toward Haiti, which is exemplary of international policy coherence. Although Haiti is currently the only country in the hemisphere treated according to a human security policy lens, the global “borderlands” that constitute the objects of human security interventions are all cases where democratic transition has failed and social conflict is acute. Does this signal a possible future for the stalled or conflictive “transitions” of Latin America?
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 | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".