MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291408308 · doi:10.4000/bifea.7651

Género y apropiación de la perspectiva de inversión social en Bolivia: el sistema de los Bonos

2015· article· es· W2291408308 on OpenAlexaff
Nora Nagels

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin de l’Institut français d’études andines · 2015
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Como la mayoría de los países latinoamericanos, Bolivia adoptó un nuevo instrumento de asistencia social considerado en la escena internacional del desarrollo como la mejor manera de luchar contra la pobreza: los programas de transferencias condicionadas monetarias (TCM). Pertenecen a la perspectiva de inversión social Posconsenso de Washington. De acuerdo con esta perspectiva, los TCM tienen como objetivo a corto plazo reducir la pobreza por el aumento de la liquidez monetaria en los hogares y a largo plazo, romper con el ciclo intergeneracional de la pobreza mediante la inversión en el capital humano de las generaciones futuras. La apropiación de esta perspectiva en Bolivia por el sistema de los Bonos se construye mediante el Estado Plurinacional que valora los derechos colectivos indígenas. A partir de una metodología cualitativa de análisis del discurso, esta contribución estudia la configuración «desarrollista» de los Bonos y las interacciones entre sus responsables políticos y destinatarias. El análisis de las entrevistas con los responsables políticos y las mujeres receptoras muestra que en Bolivia este tipo de intervención reproduce las antiguas características de las políticas sociales latinoamericanas: el maternalismo y el neocolonialismo.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin de l’Institut français d’études andinesSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207