El papel de internet en la circulación del ideario neoliberal: una mirada a las redes de Thinks Tanks latinoamericanos de las dos últimas décadas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo explora los vínculos que existen entre actores latinoamericanos activos en internet que se autodefinen como think tanks y que participan a la producción y difusión de saberes que defienden los postulados económicos neoliberales enunciados en el Consenso de Washington. Para medir estos vínculos se utilizaron herramientas de la teoría de los grafos y del análisis de redes sociales que permiten calcular los lazos, las distancias entre los actores y mostrar su eventual centralidad en un tejido de relaciones en internet. El término "red" supone la existencia de distintas categorías de participantes involucrados en una cadena de cooperaciones que pueden ser institucionalizadas o informales, directas o indirectas, ocultas o reivindicadas abiertamente. Después de definir el término think tank, este estudio muestra cómo se articula la red en el sentido de "comunidad de actores" a partir de unos think tanks llamados hubs. Gracias al uso de grafos, se ha podido poner de relieve el papel clave que desempeñan estos hubs como puentes entre los actores considerados en este estudio.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".