Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This editorial perspective develops a theoretical critique of populism in Latin America, which it takes to be the predominant form that reformist politics has assumed in the region since the 1930s. It outlines an analytical approach pivoting on the five elements of hegemonic crisis, state arbitration of class struggle, asymmetrical multi-class coalition, top-down mobilisation of popular support through mechanisms of controlled inclusion and a self-undermining paradox common to reformism more generally. This framework is sufficiently abstract to enable portability across different times and spaces of modern capitalist development in Latin America. With the five analytical premises established as a backdrop, the editorial perspective then examines what is specific to Latin American populism in the twenty-first century, followed by a detailed investigation of the phenomenon in Ecuador. The editorial perspective demonstrates that it is impossible to understand the region’s present destituent impasse – in which the far-right enjoys considerable advantages – without a thoroughgoing autopsy of the preceding Pink Tide populist conjuncture from which it emerged.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".