Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article discusses the contribution of Franco to the history of Spain. It starts by arguing that exploring his ideology is not the best way to understand what he did and why. On the contrary, it is the exploration, first, of his professional upbringing and interests, plus his opportunism, which gives us the keys to understanding the Caudillo's policies.What hose policies had in common was that they were based on the negation of Spain's diversity. We cannot truly discern if a different political leader emerging from the Civil War, even another right-wing military dictator, would have followed similar policies. What we know is that Franco achieved his goal of maintaining permanent power by artificially using the discourse of two opposing Spains: the real one that he lead and the “anti-Spain”, defeated in the Spanish Civil. This myth of the “two Spains” was created in the nineteenth century but took on a new meaning in the twentieth. It was useful not only for cementing Franco's power but also for covering the real basis of his power: the terrorizing of his enemies (and of Spanish society at large) and the protection of the material and spiritual interests of his supporters. That myth negated the suppressed diversity of Spanish society, and it could be maintained only by force. Violence, rather than ideology, was thus the minimum of the Francoist regime and Franco´s main contribution to the country´s history. Terror should be at the center of any explanation of Franco´s policies, and should be at the center of explaining his contribution to Spain´s history. Franco chose terror, never repented of his terrorist acts and threatened Spaniards with terror if they did not follow his leadership. Franco meant terror like no other leader in the history of the country. Keywords: Franco, myth, Civil War, francoism, two Spains.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".