La naturaleza de la dependencia, la dependencia de la naturaleza. Exportaciones y crecimiento económico en Argentina 1890-1938, en perspectiva comparada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolLas decadas finales del siglo XIX y las primeras del siguiente han sido caracterizadas como el periodo del “modelo agroexportador”. Durante esa etapa, la economia crecio de manera sorprendente. Tomando como referencia las experiencias de Australia y Canada, este trabajo busca analizar en que medida pueden o no hallarse en esta forma de crecimiento las causas del relativo atraso posterior de la Argentina. En un primer ejercicio, relacionamos exportaciones y crecimiento economico a lo largo del siglo XX. Luego, consideramos las etapas de crecimiento y estancamiento relativo de la Argentina, y posteriormente los rasgos de sus exportaciones, en relacion con la de los casos usados como parametro, con alguna alusion a otros paises de America Latina. Finalmente, se discute el desarrollo temporal de las vinculaciones externas de la Argentina respecto de sus posibilidades de crecimiento EnglishThe late decades of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century have been characterized in Argentina as the “agricultural export model”. During that stage, Argentina’s economy grew surprisingly well. Taking as references the experiences of Canada and Australia, this paper seeks to analyze to what extent this style of growth is related to the causes of relative stagnation in the period that followed. A first exercise studies the relation between exports and economic growth throughout the twentieth century. Then, the paper considers the stages of relative growth and stagnation of the argentine economy, and the main features of her exports, in relation to the cases used as parameters, and with some allusions to other Latin American countries. Finally, it discusses the chronological evolution of Argentina’s foreign economic linkages in relation to her possibilities of growth
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".