“Soft” and “Hard Power” in the U. S. Latin American Politics in the 19th Century
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The position of the “world hegemon” of the United States has been created during two centuries, largely due to the combination of “soft” and “hard power” in the foreign policy. The adoption in 1823 of the Monroe Doctrine (“America for Americans”), which declared South America the “exclusive zone of interests” of the United States, was declarative until the middle of the 19th century, since the country could not really compete with the first world power of that period, Great Britain. Nevertheless, the rapid economic development of the United States and the massive influx of immigrants contributed to the expansion to the “wild West” and the annexation of new territories. Americans increasingly began to use the methods of “hard power”, making attempts to annex Canada, invade Mexican territory. As a result of the Mexican-American War of 1846—1848, more than half of Mexico's territory was added to the United States. By the beginning of the twentieth century they surpassed the British in all indicators of foreign trade with the countries of the continent. The further tightening of the Monroe doctrine (the Tyler, Polk, and Olney doctrines), the American-Spanish War of 1898, and the adoption of the so-called “T. Roosevelt Corollary” in 1904 turned the United States into the main force of imperialism. To reduce the protest of Latin Americans, “soft power” was used in the form of the idea and practice of pan-Americanism. Its basic principles were discussed at conferences in Panama (1826), Lima (1847—1848, 1864), Santiago (1856) and resulted in the First Inter-American Conference in Washington (1889—1890).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it