Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Philippines is the longest lasting democracy in Southeast Asia, but its quality has been persistently poor. American colonial officials organized elections under the Commonwealth system in the 1930s, after setting up political institutions on the US model. Post-independent governments continued to hold regular elections after the Philippines gained its independence in 1946. The system proved unstable, however, as it produced tensions that opened the door to authoritarian rule. First elected as president in 1965, Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and officially disbanded the Philippines’ long-standing electoral democracy. The authoritarian regime lasted fourteen years before a “People Power” revolution brought it down in 1986. This marked the Philippines’ transition to its current democratic regime. Rather than build a new democratic system, however, the crafters of the Philippines’ new constitution returned to the previous model of a US-based presidential system. Established elites recaptured it, and recreated many of the problems that marked the pre-Marcos democracy. As a result, the new democracy has held regular elections but its quality remains low. We can explain this pattern of transformation and continuity by focusing on some comparative similarities with other cases while also recognizing some factors specific to the Philippines. As in the case of Indonesia, some scholars such as Carl Landé have emphasized the continuity of practices across time (Landé, 1965). Patrimonialism, they argue, has been a persistent feature of Filipino politics. Close ties between patrons and their clients allowed wealthy families to strengthen and maintain their political and economic power. From this perspective, there was little difference between democratic regimes before and after Marcos, as well as his authoritarian period, since wealth concentration, and the use of state instruments to enhance private wealth have been persistent features of the system, whether authoritarian or democratic.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.019 |
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".