Permanent Campaign: Three Glances on the Same Phenomenon from The Americas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a state-of-the-art review of the permanent campaign in the Americas, examining it both as a concept and as a political and communicative phenomenon. It analyzes three geographically situated scholarly traditions within the continent: the United States, Canada, and Latin America. The research organizes existing approaches around six causal categories commonly used to address the phenomenon. However, upon identifying a methodological gap in causal articulation, the study employs process tracing to construct three exploratory theoretical models that unify these approaches. This facilitates progress toward the hypothesis that the permanent campaign constitutes a presidential strategy generating path dependence, thereby altering the democratic conditions from which it emerges. In this vein, the article proposes a new taxonomy of governmental communication. While the research does not empirically test these theories, it establishes a critical distinction between the permanent campaign and personalism, argues that this strategy is not exclusive to left-wing governments, and posits the potential for studying diverse cases or case clusters in Latin America through the integration of historical institutionalism and process tracing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".