Proteção social na América Latina e Caribe: mudanças, contradições e limites
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
Recent studies suggest that governments in the majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries were able to expand social investments and introduce innovations in social protection policies in the last two decades with positive results in the actions' coverage and impact. However, the restrictions imposed by the current fiscal crisis and the rise of governments more ideologically aligned with the neoliberal discourse in various countries in the region point to a new retreat of the state from the social area, thereby compromising recent advances. The article aims to discuss the changes, contradictions, and limits of recent social protection standards in Latin America and the Caribbean. The discussion includes three items: a description of the history of social protection in the region, seeking to identify its principal historical periods and characteristics (benefits, target public, and financing); the social protection models that have been implemented in the region; and the specific case of health. We argue that although countries have adopted different solutions in the field of social protection, the policies' hybrid nature (with extensive private sector participation in the financing, supply, and management of services) and the prevalence of segmented models (with differential access according to individuals' social status) have been predominant traits in social protection in Latin America and the Caribbean, thus limiting the possibilities for greater equity and social justice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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