Mervyn Bain and Chris Walker (eds.). Cuban International Relations at 60. Reflections on Global Connections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most readers of this book review, in this journal, will be sympathetic to the position of this reviewer that "revolutionary Cuba does many things differently", regardless of if they find those things good, bad, or just interesting.This is true for health care, education, disaster preparedness, the economy, social participation, their system of government, and on and on … and in particular relative to this book, its international relations.This edited collection of 14 chapters came out of the conference "Cuba's Revolution at 60" at Dalhousie University in the fall of 2019.On the one hand, the material in this book thoroughly supports the position that "Cuba's international relations are different".On the other hand, the works in this collection are each rich in detail on their specific topic.A fundamental question in the background of this and all studies of revolutionary Cuba's intentional relations is why Cuba has "such [a] disproportionally large international profile" (p.277) for a relatively small (11.2 million) and economically weakly developed country, why "Cuba's level of engagement with the world throughout its sixty-year revolutionary period is extraordinary" (p.275).This is an example of exactly what was brought up in the opening paragraph of this review, of Cuba doing something different from "the norm".What I will argue here, using a frame for thinking about Cuba's international relations from the introduction to this work, is that what makes Cuba's international relations so different from the norm for a country of its size and level of economic development is exactly what is at the root of most of "the things that revolutionary Cuba does differently".This is the 60-year revolutionary process within which it carries out everything that it does.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".