Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the first two estimates of the Argentine cost of living index, focusing on their producers, Alejandro Bunge and José Figuerola. The Bunge index, released in 1918, did not hold as a stable social and political artifact because it lacked legitimacy in the eyes of many sectors of society. This was a consequence of Bunge’s personal connections, and of the close relationship between the index and Bunge and between the index and his macroeconomic vision, which differed from that of the economic and political elite. The trajectory of the second estimate, released in 1935 by the National Labor Department, highlights the importance of the working class as a social actor in fostering the adoption of the cost of living index. The legitimacy of the National Labor Department’s index was enhanced by the connections between Figuerola and the International Labour Organization. The contrast between the two histories suggests that for a cost of living index to hold as a stable social and political artifact during the first half of the twentieth century, a connection between the index and industrial relations had to exist. In particular, the index should contribute toward the formation of the working class as a visible object for policy intervention.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".