Bibliographic record
Abstract
What do constructivist theory and the experiences of international institutions tell us about what kinds of community to build and how to build communities in international relations? Recently, the constructivist scholarship in international relations (IR) has invested a significant deal of theoretical and empirical attention in security communities and processes of interstate community-building. The very fact that certain states have transcended the realist world of power politics to conduct their relations on the basis of mutual trust and identification has been taken as solid evidence that progress is possible in international relations. In normative terms, interstate community-building has been considered a positive development in two respects. First of all, it has been widely believed that community relations based on mutual trust and identification consolidate a condition of stable peace, where states come to neither expect nor prepare for war against each other. Secondly, interstate communities in the context of membered institutions serve as fruitful grounds for the consolidation and outward diffusion of international norms, specifically through the imposition of membership conditionality. Constructivist scholars have pointed to various examples of interstate communities, both within and outside the context of membered international institutions, such as the European Union (EU), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the US–Canadian relationship, the US–Israeli relationship and the group of democratic states writ large.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".