The Rise and Irrelevance of the State: Political Views from a Peasant Community of the 2016 Peruvian Presidential Election
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This case study of a peasant community in the Peruvian central highlands examines how vibrant political engagement in the 1970s became indifference during the 2016 Peruvian presidential election. It focuses on changing livelihood activities over the past three decades. Thirty years ago, community incomes were based on farming and wage labor, and community members were activists in worker–peasant organizations to achieve better market and work conditions. Now, small‐scale agriculture and formal employment have declined and livelihoods are precarious. The state addresses this through decentralized spending and cash transfers. Despite this unprecedented state support, the community had no interest in the 2016 national election. Instead, their attention was focused on the municipality, which delivers the new funds in Peru's decentralized government system. Rather than leveraging job and income creation, these funds condemn the people to ongoing precarity because the state has avoided the structural changes that would create viable jobs and markets for their products. These concerns find no organized political expression, as recent analysis of Peruvian politics reveals a weak party system and fragmented civil society. This situation poses significant challenges to political organizations that would seek more equitable structural transformations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".