La incorporación de lo subestatal en la relación argentino-chilena: los comités de integración y la reunión de intendentes y gobernadores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-five non-central governments are located on the border between Argentina and Chile (the third longest in the world); however, their participation in the bilateral relationship has not been properly studied. The Argentine provinces and Chilean regions claimed their place by co-opting border committees, created by the States for the coordination of border transit, and transforming them into forums for sub-state integration. Similar was the development of the Reunión Binacional de Intendentes Chilenos y Gobernadores Argentinos de la Frontera Común. In both cases, the non-central governments claimed their participation in the bilateral relationship, to which the States created or adapted existing forums, and crystallized the processes in the 2009 Maipú Treaty. The objective of the article is to analyze which was the path taken for the incorporation of the sub-state dimension into the bilateral relationship, what is its current institutional situation and what challenges it faces. For this, primary and secondary sources are used, highlighting among the former a series of interviews with key informants. The article reveals that the non-central governments of Argentina and Chile generated pressure for their recognition as actors in the bilateral relationship, which was welcomed and institutionalized by the States. However, this crystallization of paradiplomatic activity does not guarantee its continuity or development, since challenges persist, such as shortening of agendas, lack of participation and dependence on national political scenarios.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".