MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376867833 · doi:10.1017/9781009305204

North Korea, Tricontinentalism, and the Latin American Revolution, 1959–1970

2023· book· en· W4376867833 on OpenAlexaff
Moe Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansPolitical scienceCommunismPower (physics)PoliticsDemocracyChinaColonialismGeneral partnershipDemocratic revolutionEconomic historyFront (military)Political economyHistoryGeographySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this deftly argued book, Moe Taylor examines the flourishing relationship between North Korea, Cuba, and the Latin American Left through the 1960s. Beginning with the Cuban Revolution, which represented North Korea's first phase of major engagement with the region, both nations found common ground in the belief that the hopes of the international Left relied on an anti-imperialist, anti-US united front – a global campaign of guerrilla warfare against US power. This special partnership included a joint-program to train, arm, and finance revolutionary movements throughout Latin America. In the process, North Korea became an important influence on Cuban and Latin American left-wing discourse on matters of economic development, revolutionary organization and strategy, democracy, and leadership. Both nations pioneered a new Third World-ist political phenomenon – Tricontinentalism – that challenged Soviet and Chinese leadership over the international communist movement, and injected a fiercely radical current into the left-wing and anti-colonial movements of the Global South.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political StudiesFrench-language works237,207