Lines in the sand : nationalism and identity on the Peruvian-Chilean frontier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the war of the Pacific (1879-1883), Chile and Peru signed the Treaty of Ancon (1884) that, in part, dealt with settling a territorial dispute over the provinces of Tacna and Arica along the countries' new common border. The treaty allowed Chile to administer the two provinces for a period of ten years, after which a plebiscite would allow the region's inhabitants to determine their own nationality. At the end of the prearranged decade, however, the Chilean and the Peruvian governments had failed to conduct the vote that would determine the fate of the people. Over a quarter of a century later, and after attempts by the U.S. government to mediate the dispute, the two countries in 1929 decided simply to divide the area, with Arica becoming a part of Chile and Peru reincorporating Tacna. Against the backdrop of this contested frontier, William Skuban explores the processes of nationalism and national identity formation in the half century that followed the War of the Pacific. He first considers the national projects of Peru and Chile in the disputed territories and then moves on to how these efforts were received among the diverse social strata of the region. Skuban's study highlights the fabricated nature of national identity in what became one of the most contentious frontier situations in South American history.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".