Chapter 7. Egalitarian and Hierarchical Tensions in Cuban Self-Employed Ventures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marina GoldHistorically, Cuba has been exposed to diff erent state models.From the Spanish colonial extractivist state, Cuba became a neo-colony of the US, inextricably linked to US industrial and corporate capital.Property and resources were either owned by North American magnates or in the hands of Cuban elites that responded to US interests.Aft er the 1959 Revolution, and particularly since the mid 1960s, Cuba became integrated into the Soviet economy and was under the infl uence of state corporatism of the USSR, where the Soviet Party controlled both economic and political processes.Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba has developed economic ventures with China, Spain, Canada and various partners within the region, such as Venezuela and Argentina.During the decade of the Pink Tide, the regional political confi guration of left -leaning governments that supported alternative views to the North American neoliberal model provided a friendlier economic and ideological network for Cuba.Th e recent move to the right in Latin American governments and the increasing antagonism of the Trump administration present a radical regional shift .Th e corporatization of the state in Latin America and elsewhere, more than an economic force, transforms personhood and reconfi gures people-state relationships.In the 1960s and 1970s, the left ist projects in Latin America (the Cuban Revolution, Allende's Chile, the Nicaraguan Sandinista Revolution) proposed alternatives to the imperial capitalist North American model.At the core of these ideologies, strongly infl uenced by Marxism and Anarchism, was the radical challenge to capitalist American hegemony -
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".