« Vague rose » et syndicalisme : enseignements des expériences argentine et brésilienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une analyse comparative de l’action des syndicats argentins et brésiliens pendant la période appelée « vague rose », soit celle durant laquelle un grand nombre de gouvernements progressistes furent au pouvoir en Amérique du Sud, ainsi qu’à la fin de celle-ci, quand des partis politiques de droite reviennent au pouvoir. À partir d’un cadre d’analyse ancré dans l’économie politique critique et le néo-institutionnalisme historique, l’approche comparée permet de faire ressortir la résilience des dynamiques corporatistes, mais aussi leurs spécificités nationales, induites par des héritages politiques et juridiques distincts. L’implantation différenciée des syndicats argentins et brésiliens dans les milieux de travail, ainsi que leurs rapports distincts à la scène partisane et à l’unité syndicale expliquent en grande partie les différences observées au moment de la chute des gouvernements progressistes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".