Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even long before its last democratic restoration in 1983, Argentina has been a salient case for comparative political analyses. Several relevant concepts and events—such as the bureaucratic-authoritarian state and the presence of an impossible game developed by O’Donnell; the paradox of underdevelopment compared to Australia or Canada, as explained by Platt, Martin, and Di Tella; the emergence of a rara avis called Peronism in the work of Gino Germani and others; or the path of transition by collapse depicted by O’Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead—kept the profile of this country high in the consideration of academic scholarship. History helped to bring about this high profile in an undeniable manner. Within a century, Argentina hosted multiple military coups and further democratic restorations, successive calls for elections where the plurality party was banned from competition, an almost never-ending cycle of economic crises, and even a war against a NATO member that triggered the last return to democracy in 1983. Throughout the more than three straight decades of contemporary democracy, different dimensions of politics and government in Argentina have been analyzed by the literature. The complex interactions among actors and institutions in a country characterized by presidentialism, federalism, political mobilization, interruptions of executive mandates, a wide middle class, redistributive claims, a past of repression, and cyclical economic shocks, among others, forged substantive political dynamics. Most of these dimensions will be reviewed in this chapter, whose contributions have been published in the most relevant journals and presses, especially in the areas of institutions, subnational politics, and clientelism and patronage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".