Is Chile a Model for Economic Development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chilean economy is usually highly praised as a successful one since the imposition \nof neoliberal reforms, under the dictatorship of general Pinochet in 1973. The fact is \nthat the four decades that have elapsed include sub-periods with quite different policy \napproaches and notably diverse outcomes. There is neither one unique model nor only \none outcome. The four decades growth is moderate, averaging 4.2% per year; during the \n16 years of dictatorship averaged 2.9% (meager), during one quarter of a century of \ndemocracy, 5.1%, a good performance, but a vigorous 7.1% in the first years (1990-98) \nand a modest 3.9% in the fifteen more recent years. Sometimes has performed closer to \nbecome a “model” for development, sometimes the opposite. Focusing in three episodes \n(1973-81, 1990-98 and 2008-13), we explore the underlying explanatory variables and \nsome lessons for building “a model for development”.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".