Rendimiento decreciente, ciencia normal o especialización: reflexiones en torno a un cuarto de siglo de estudios históricos sobre el peronismo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since approximately the year 2000, historical studies on Peronism have shown renewed encouragement in Argentina. This historiographic flowering had two main phases and followed three logics. The two phases were constituted by a notorious interest in the first Peronism (1945-1955) during the 2000-2010 period, and then by the Peronism after 1955 with special emphasis for the 1955-1976 segment. The history of Peronism in the 1980s and 1990s produced significant studies, but it is plausible to argue that these are decades whose deployment in research is ongoing. The logics of the new historiography were three. The first consisted of reformulating or debating classical interpretations. This was the case with respect to economic history (was there a Peronist industrialization?), the history of the unionized working class (what were both the nature and the meaning of the sectoral conflicts?, was the labor movement “heteronymous”?) and the history of Peronism “in the interior of the country”. The second logic of innovation consisted of making visible issues previously considered unnecessary research: the Peronist Party, the General Confederation ofLabor, associationism, the second lines of leadership, the left and Peronism, science and technology, the intelligentsia. Peronist, among others. Finally, a third novelty entered through the door of recent academic trends. This is what happened with thehistory of gender, consumption, sexuality, affections, the racial and the public. This paper proposes a conceptual and historiographical synthesis and balance of almost a quarter of a century of “renovative” studies. He tries to evaluate what interpretative changes were verified, he wonders if they were able to propose new readings and what were their analytical performances in the development that the elapsed time enables them to think.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".