Crise politique et transnationalisation de l’État en Amérique latine : une interprétation théorique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If the crisis of the state has been a common trait in Latin America, its manifestations have not been the same throughout the continent. This article examines two general and apparently contraditory trends : the trend toward authoritarian capitalism resulting from the crisis of hegemony in South America and the trend towards popularly-based insurgency resulting from a crisis of domination in most of Central America. The author bases his general interpretation of these trends on the analysis of the historical and structural relationships between four factors identified as responsible for the drastic change in the role of the state, from "national development" to "national security" : the crisis in the model of accumulation, the growing polarization of political alliance, the transnationalization of the civil society and the state, and the interplay between relative autonomy of the state and transnationalization. He finds that the combination of transnational integration of the Latin American elites into one U.S.-centered project with hegemonic pretensions, and a growing marginalization and alienation on the part of the bulk of the internal constituencies has brought about an acute crisis of both legitimation and domination. As violence becomes the most common political currency - with repression and plain state terrorism evolving into a distinct style of politics - and the prospects towards redemocratization being very fragile, the author concludes that revolutionary struggles may be the only possibility for an indigenous redefinition of development, national self-determination and democracy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".