Consent, coercion and <i>cooperativismo</i> : Mining cooperatives and resource regimes in Bolivia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines ways in which regional political, economic, and cultural hegemonies maintain “resource regimes” by exploring the emergence of mining cooperatives as central actors in Bolivia’s extractive economy. Like much of Latin America, Bolivia is experiencing a boom in resource extraction. Unlike other Latin American countries, in which the surge in mining activity is driven almost entirely by private, mostly transnational capital, relatively small-scale mining cooperatives play a major role in Bolivia’s mining economy. We draw on the Gramscian concepts of hegemony and the integral state to explore the historical and contemporary relationship between mining cooperatives and unfolding patterns of mineral, water, and territorial governance, particularly in Oruro and Potosí departments. We argue that the regional hegemony of the mining economy has been constructed and maintained by the close historical relationship between mining cooperatives and the Bolivian state. Since the 1930s, the state has supported the formation of mining cooperatives as a means of bolstering the mining economy and stemming political unrest; in recent decades, however, cooperatives have become more actively involved in the maintenance of mining’s regional hegemony.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".