Organization of American States in Haiti: Election Monitoring or Political Intervention?, The?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper has to do with a question that is important for the future of the Hemisphere: namely, what to do about the Organization of American States (OAS)? On February 23, 2010, heads of state from throughout Latin America and the Caribbean met in Cancun and formed a new organization: the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). It has the same membership as the OAS, but without the United States and Canada, and it includes Cuba.The new organization is expected to have another summit meeting in December, and this paper is written for that meeting. Although some have maintained that CELAC is not meant to displace the OAS, it will inevitably -- if it succeeds -- do that to some degree. This paper shows that an organization independent of Washington's influence is both necessary and desirable, especially for the furtherance of democracy in the Hemisphere.Although this paper is by its nature rather technical, the basic issues are not complicated. It calls into question, in a very serious manner, the conduct of the OAS in its unprecedented action that reversed the electoral result of the first round in Haiti's most recent election. As has been noted previously, this decision was not based on statistical inference from the electoral data. This paper goes further, and shows that the OAS decision was inconsistent with the electoral data. If the OAS decision was made for political reasons -- as appears to be the case -- it raises serious questions about the OAS as an independent arbiter of electoral or other disputes that arise in the hemisphere. It also indicates that the hemisphere may need a new multilateral organization to safeguard the rights of people in Latin America and the Caribbean to freely choose their own governments, and to democracy and self-determination more generally.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".