MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409716391 · doi:10.1017/9781009344821.005

The Making of a Reformist Coup

2025· book-chapter· fr· W4409716391 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Coleman

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of all the cases studied in this book, the 1972 coup d’état in Honduras is the one we know the least about. General Oswaldo López Arellano, the military general who led the coup, implemented a reformist agenda, the boldest in Central America – and, indeed, among the most progressive in Latin America. Given that his previous coup ended a Honduran experiment with social democracy, this shift away from repression and toward land reform and developmentalism is puzzling. To understand the political choices that led to this coup and its reformist character, this chapter chronologically reconstructs both the conjunctures in which the military could have overthrown the sitting president but did not, and the crucial months leading up to December 4, 1972, when López Arellano did overthrow President Ernesto Cruz. Hondurans anticipated the coup, but they did not know whether it would be, as one editorial writer noted at the time, “from the Left or the Right.” That it ended up being from the Left was not at all foretold by structural conditions – for similar conditions prevailed in neighboring El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua – and had everything to do with the political decision to address the problems faced by a landless peasantry.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207