The Second Century: U.S.-Latin American Relations Since 1889. MARK T. GILDERHUS: Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 2000.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book offers a new historical synthesis of U.S.-Latin American relations in the twentieth century. One way that Mark T. Gilderhus accomplishes this is by placing his analysis and conclusions in sharp historiographical focus. At times, this takes the form of tweaking his colleagues: "Aided by the advantage of hindsight," (p.32) Gilderhus writes dryly at one point, historians have assessed the policies that constituted dollar diplomacy as failures. His point is that to describe dollar diplomacy as either a success or a failure is neither useful nor particularly probing of the nature of U.S. policy or its results. Here and elsewhere in the narrative, the author is smart, terse, and analytically sharp. Gilderhus is not interested in a revisionist harangue, nor is he concerned with a historical defence of U.S. actions. The approach is realistic; both in the case of dollar diplomacy and more generally, the author is interested in probing the motives for U.S. policies, understanding related Latin American decision-making, then identifying what worked for the U.S., what did not, and why. Like much of U.S. policy in the twentieth century, dollar diplomacy represents a mixed bag of outcomes that includes, most importantly, the implementation of something Gilderhus describes as closely resembling an empire, but, at the same time, Washington's inability to sustain peace, order and predictability.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it