Power, the State and Global Politics After the Great Freeze:Towards a New Articulation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
intRoduCtionIn the social sciences, scholarly disciplines can be prompted to re-evaluate the analytical traction of their central concepts by abrupt changes in how the object of their scholarship is organized.The disciplines of International Relations (IR) and International Political Economy (IPE) have long faced such pressure.For example, some see the interwar years and the Great Depression as the precursor not only to the empirical development of American hegemony, but also as a key spur to the emergence of realism as a central method of apprehending power (Carr, 1946;Schmidt, 1998; Cox, 2000).Several decades later, scholars took the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system as a prompt both to re-evaluate the utility of realism as a theoretical lens for IR and IPE, and as a signal that the post-war structure of the global political economy was itself entering a period of 'after hegemony', to use the title of a significant text from that era (Keohane and Nye, 1977;Keohane, 1984).This last debate over American decline of power was seemingly resolved in the closing years of the 20th century, amid the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the re-assertion of American power (Cox, 2001).The uni-polar era had arrived even as governance was becoming increasingly globalized (Scholte, 2000;Ikenberry, Mastanduno and Wohlforth, 2009).The financial crisis of 2007-2009 has brought this paradoxical resolution into question.The central features of the crisis include both domestic and international dynamics: regulatory failure among leading 1
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".