MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566021714 · doi:10.1080/01436597.2016.1259558

Post-neoliberalism in Latin America: a conceptual review

2016· review· en· W2566021714 on OpenAlexafffund
Arne Rückert, Laura Macdonald, Kristina R. Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenueThird World Quarterly · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeoliberalism (international relations)Washington ConsensusLatin AmericansPolitical scienceVariety (cybernetics)Political economySociologyDevelopment economicsPoliticsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of post-neoliberalism has emerged in response to the electoral victories of new left governments across Latin America starting in the late 1990s. Since then, it has been widely employed to understand the policy response of new left governments to the neoliberal Washington Consensus. However, there is no clear consensus on the utility of the concept and little effort has been made to systematically analyse policy and institutional trends amongst countries pursuing post-neoliberal strategies, including attention to variation in approaches to policy and underlying tensions and contradictions of post-neoliberal policy development. We performed a critical literature review of post-neoliberalism and, based on this review, argue that the concept remains useful, but only if we understand it as a tendency to break with neoliberal policy prescriptions leading to a variety of distinct post-neoliberalisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations103
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThird World QuarterlySame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207