Will Fowler.<i>Independent Mexico: The Pronunciamiento in the Age of Santa Anna, 1821–1858</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No other period in the field of Mexican history offers such a complex political narrative as the first four decades after independence, 1821–1858, sometimes called “the age of Santa Anna” because Antonio López de Santa Anna was in and out of the presidency many times. Santa Anna’s dominant presence during this time has served to constrict research and publication on the period, and has led most instructors to skim over those years in the classroom. The most salient and important political characteristic of the period was the pronunciamiento, or pronouncement—an insurrectionary practice by which various political actors, groups, and communities aggressively petitioned the government to address their grievances. Not coups d’etat or revolts, the pronouncement represented what Fowler calls “forceful negotiation” to change the government or constitution, at both the national and regional level. Although most were peaceful, they nonetheless caused continuous political turmoil. Between 1824 and 1851 only two presidents completed their term of office, while many years saw two or more changes of the presidency. In total, there were over 1,500 pronouncements, many of them bringing about changes of government. The pronouncement provided Mexicans with a way to conduct and influence politics at a time when the nation-state was still in formation, governments were weak, constitutional order lacked legitimacy, and law was a matter of opinion.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".