Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter I argue that regions in world politics are constituted by sets of specific ways of doing things – practices – that create more or less ordered spaces and narratives of regional interaction. Because they are socially meaningful and organized patterns of action, practices have structuring effects on politics. At the regional level of analysis, security practices such as war, deterrence, diplomacy, arms control, and military exchanges generate configured fields of interaction with variable degrees of order. Security communities, for example, are constituted by the self-evident practice of diplomacy. Likewise, regional nuclear deterrence is made possible by a limited set of patterned gestures – weapons deployment, summit diplomacy, rhetorical formulas, disarmament talks, and so forth – that organize the security game in mutually intelligible terms. As the case of post-Cold War Russian–Atlantic relations makes clear, however, regional security practices do not always form coherent and well-ordered wholes. Quite often, regional configurations are comprised of competing ways of doing things. This practice clash may lead to unstable security dynamics in which the meanings of interaction are contested or at least not mutually recognized. The case of NATO–Russia politics is particularly evocative here. In the early 1990s both former enemies appeared to be seeking to transform regional security practices from Cold War realpolitik to a new game of cooperative security and democratic peace. But the practices that each side enacted to that end were generally encountered by the other as a continuation of the past instead of a call for change. NATO’s enlargement, to take the most prominent example, was linked back to containment practices in Moscow. Reciprocally, Russia’s reactions to expansion, particularly during the negotiations of the 1997 Founding Act with the Alliance, were construed as outdated superpower diplomacy in Brussels. As a result, respective security practices partly failed to constitute a new pattern of regional order. Although some change occurred, as evidenced by new practices of seminar diplomacy or joint military exercises, twenty years after the end of the Cold War Russian–Atlantic relations remain structured by a combination of competing practices that do not always sit easily with each other.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".