Rearticulating the State through Governmental Regimes: State Power and Popular and Indigenous Participation in Ecuador 2008-2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is a study of the processes of state formation and reproduction in Ecuador between 2008 and 2012. In particular, it analyzes three specific areas of state formation: first, the formation of narratives about the state seeking to legitimize its presence in society. More specifically, it analyses how the state incorporates narratives emerging from indigenous peoples' worldviews into the state apparatus and the ways in which these enter in tension with "developmentalist" narratives. Second, it investigates the various ways in which the state apprehends, organizes, distributes and ultimately creates specific fields of intervention in the area of participatory planning; and third, the ways in which the state exercises different and complementary modalities of state power in the government of participation popular movements, particularly the indigenous movement. This dissertation's general argument is that the state reproduces itself by creating spaces where it can legitimately intervene in society. Moreover, it contends that the Ecuadorian state has reconfigured and strengthened its presence in society through a combination of modern techniques of power rooted on a technocratic, knowledge-intensive form of government as well as disciplinary techniques of rule based on the correction and reformation of particular populations. In this sense, this dissertation posits that there is a governmental effort to "technify" and depoliticize participation in order to make it more governable, and that popular participation outside of the state is met with disciplinary acts.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".