Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have now examined eight international institutions. More would be possible, but they are not necessary to allow us to make some judgments about one important marker of change in international politics. This concluding chapter has five purposes: to map, collectively, the pattern of institutional change in international politics over the past three centuries, approximately; to evaluate the types of changes in these institutions; to offer judgments about the degree of institutionalization in each domain of international politics; to outline some of the sources or explanations of change; and to explore the “so what” question: do institutions matter? Table 10.1 summarizes the discussion of the foundational and process institutions. All four foundational institutions were new in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. They had no precedents in European or world history. All have changed in the past three centuries, but the main type, with the exception of territoriality, has been complexity, not transformation or obsolescence. The state, for example, has taken on many new tasks and functions, developed ever-expanding sources of revenue, and instilled loyalties that were unknown or only nascent three hundred years ago. Yet, its late seventeenth-century antecedents are clearly recognizable as states. They had many of the same functions, although more limited in scope, and they had institutional continuity not typical of earlier types of polities. Similar comments could be made for sovereignty and international law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".