Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable interest in contemporary Cuban politics as the present leadership ages; as Cuba experiences tremendous changes in its economic life which have had a significant impact upon its social and political processes; and as commentators speculate about the nature of the political transition which the island has embarked upon. There have been many books about the Cuban Revolution, many of them written by North Americans and frequently by authors with Cuban origins or family backgrounds. Much of the literature upon Cuba is driven by ideological preoccupations. I felt there was an opening for a book which takes a more reflective perspective upon what the Revolution has meant and the influence it has exerted upon diverse groups. These groups would include the Cubans themselves, leaders and people; the states of Central and Latin America (particularly left-wing parties and popular movements); the United States (the political establishment, public opinion and the Cuban émigré community); the old Soviet Union; other states such as Canada and the countries of the European Union and Africa; and academics and activists. This is a political process which has remained fascinating to many and, as Dick Parker has observed, shown ‘a surprising capacity for survival’; such capacity, I will argue, has been founded more upon legitimacy than coercion but it has been a legitimacy which has had to be constantly recreated and revitalized if the Revolution was to endure. 1
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.306 | 0.111 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".