Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a study about the emergence and institutionalization of two social sciences disciplines and lays on the social constructivist theoretical framework The latter assumes that scientific disciplines develop in specific social environments, under the influence of particular economic, institutional, intellectual and social factors.The study was carried out in Uruguay, a scientifically peripheral country, and was based on archival research and on in-depth interviews with key informants.The first and the second chapters explore the conditions which shaped the historical evolution of Economics and Sociology in Uruguay, emphasizing the scientific activities that took place during two decades of political instability.The military dictatorship imposed in Uruguay between 1973 and 1985 led to the restructuring of Uruguayan academic practices.Concerning the social sciences, certain private research centers (CIEDUR, CIESU, CINVE and CLAEH) arose and continued with investigative work and human resources' training, partly thanks to the financial assistance that they received from various international and philanthropic foundations (mainly, the Ford Foundation, the International Development Research Centre of Canada and the Swedish Agency for Research Co-operation with Developing Countries, SAREC).The last chapter analyzes the role played by external funding on a set of aspects, namely: the establishment of the research agendas, the construction of the dynamics of the local scientific community, the occurrence of an 'institutional learning process', and the maintenance of a 'resistance movement' that allowed Economics and Sociology to be kept alive in the country.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".