Pluralism in IR Theory: An Eclectic Study of Diplomatic Apologies and Regrets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper sketches a pragmatic analysis of diplomatic apologies and regrets. To conduct such a study, some points of Sil and Katzenstein’s “analytic eclecticism” should be clarified. Adapting Railton’s concept of “ideal explanatory text”, the recent works by Forland, Van Bouwel and Weber help clarifying how various causal mechanisms may be complementary to the understanding of one specific problem: different frameworks of analysis are needed to answer different why-questions encompassed in this problem. Their works parallel Kurki’s advocacy of a post-Humean conception of causation. These analyses will be presented and briefly applied to the study of diplomatic apologies and regrets, showing how liberalism, constructivism, game theory (and other theories) are complementary to understand such complex phenomena. The main purpose of this paper is to show why it is interesting to integrate Sil and Katzenstein analyses with Kurki, Forland, Van Bouwel and Weber’s to conduct a problem-driven and complexity-sensitive research.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".