MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599548027 · doi:10.1111/joac.12211

A coup foretold: Fernando Lugo and the lost promise of agrarian reform in Paraguay

2017· article· en· W2599548027 on OpenAlexaff
Arturo Ezquerro‐Cañete, Ramón Fogel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agrarian Change · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgrarian societyPoliticsAgrarian reformContext (archaeology)Political economyState (computer science)CapitalismDemocracyConceptualizationLand reformPolitical scienceSociologyEconomyGeographyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper offers a political economy interpretation of the “parliamentary coup” that took place in Paraguay in June 2012. It situates this analysis in the wider historical context of the protracted transition to democracy between 1989 and 2008, the rural class structure of the country, the changing character of contemporary agro‐extractive capitalism, and the long‐standing class struggle for redistributive land reform. By examining the Paraguayan agrarian reform impasse under the short‐lived government of Fernando Lugo (2008–2012) through an “interactive state/society” framework, this paper attempts to locate the sources of current social and political conflict in the country, and the demands of rival social groups. In doing so, the paper argues that the rise and fall of Lugo occurred in the context of structural legacies from the Stroessner era (1954–1989) that have remained largely unchanged and that coexist today with an expanding agro‐extractivist development model. They lead to the conceptualization of the continued “predatory” or “oligarchic” state in the country.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations58
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agrarian ChangeSame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207