Latin America, the Caribbean and Canada 154 159 163 165
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are several distinctive characteristics for this region, compared to other parts of the Third World. At the start of the century, almost all of the region was politically independent; except certain colonies in and bordering on the Caribbean. Many of the countries had begun to industrialize by 1929, and correspondingly, several governments consciously pushed a policy of import substitution industrialization after World War II. Railroads were quite important during the first half of the century, and the role of the private sector, domestic and foreign, was more important here than elsewhere in the Third World. Further introductory generalizations are that the presence of US investment has been strongest in Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and certain Andean countries, while that of European investors was more notable in Argentina, Brazil, and in the other countries often referred to as the Southern Cone. During the last two decades of the century outward foreign investment has reached noticeable levels from Mexico and from the Southern Cone countries; for these latter, a regional integration scheme, Mercosur, has provided an important economic stimulus. Since midcentury, a major regional office of the United Nations, known by the various acronyms ECLA, ECLAC, or CEPAL, has documented the region’s development, while helping to frame the consideration of development policies. Canada is included in this chapter not only because of some structural similarities with other countries in the hemisphere, but particularly due to the important role that foreign investment has always had in the country. As such, the Canadian case may have lessons for other countries in the region.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".