Bibliographic record
Abstract
In what ways is sovereignty an international institution? Many would argue that it is such a nebulous and contested concept that it has no fixed or essential meaning or application in international life. But if we think of sovereignty as a set of practices, ideas, beliefs, and norms, its significance as a foundational international institution becomes clearer. Without it, the life of political communities, even if organized into states, would be vitally different. Consider some of the common individual and state practices that we take for granted, yet are the consequences of sovereignty. At the individual level, when a traveler commits a crime in a foreign country, he or she is immediately subject to the host's laws. He or she cannot appeal to some other authority for protection or release. That same traveler does not stop to ponder why a passport is necessary to enter another country. It is just done, and that is the way things are. But passports are a creation of the twentieth century (although they existed shortly during the French Revolution as well). They are an expression of sovereignty in the sense that they identify the citizenship of the bearer, which means that he or she has differential rights based on location. The passport does not confer anyone's right to enter a country. The host can exclude anyone it wants. So we travel abroad because governments agree to let us enter. Consent is a critical fact of sovereignty.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".