The Birth of a Discipline: o convênio Ford-Iuperj e a modernização da ciência política no Brasil (1967-1973)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late 1960s, Brazilian political science underwent a process of academic modernization that transformed the discipline's theoretical assumptions, institutional arrangements, foreign dialogues, and thematic approach. The field isolated the previously dominating sociopolitical thought explanations and turned to a scientifically-guided, objective approach, with new methodological tools. With robust financial aid provided by U.S. philanthropic foundations, several newly-created research institutions and graduate programs helped accommodate young political scientists returning to Brazil after earning their PhDs abroad. This fields' new direction included a major investment in academic internationalization, which brought forth the development of a cross-national intellectual network. Thematically, these new academic trends envisioned the discipline as an applied and policy-oriented science with a say in non-academic public debate and a closer relationship to governmental issues. One of the protagonists of this modernization process was Iuperj (Instituto Universitrio de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro), founded in 1967 by the legal scholar and social thinker Candido Mendes de Almeida. With the philanthropic support from the Ford Foundation, the institute would establish itself in the coming decades as a leading political science center in the country both in training and research. Drawing on primary sourcesespecially the Ford-Iuperj grant agreement documentation and the personal papers of U.S. intellectuals
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".