MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917064244 · doi:10.4324/9781315162935

The Routledge Handbook of Latin American Development

2018· book· en· W2917064244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansHistoryPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Routledge Handbook of Latin American Development seeks to engage with comprehensive, contemporary, and critical theoretical debates on Latin American development. The volume draws on contributions from across the humanities and social sciences and, unlike earlier volumes of this kind, explicitly highlights the disruptions to the field being brought by a range of anti-capitalist, decolonial, feminist, and ontological intellectual contributions. The chapters consider in depth the harms and suffering caused by various oppressive forces, as well as the creative and often revolutionary ways in which ordinary Latin Americans resist, fight back, and work to construct development defined broadly as the struggle for a better and more dignified life. The book covers many key themes including development policy and practice; neoliberalism and its aftermath; the role played by social movements in cities and rural areas; the politics of water, oil, and other environmental resources; indigenous and Afro-descendant rights; and the struggles for gender equality. With contributions from authors working in Latin America, the US and Canada, Europe, and New Zealand at a range of universities and other organizations, the handbook is an invaluable resource for students and teachers in development studies, Latin American studies, cultural studies, human geography, anthropology, sociology, political science, and economics, as well as for activists and development practitioners. -- Provided by publisher

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.030

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations42
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207