MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1731351498 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139096836.003

How regions were made, and the legacies for world politics

2012· book-chapter· en· W1731351498 on OpenAlexaff
Barry Buzan

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsContext (archaeology)MainstreamState (computer science)Economic geographyGeographyPositivismPolitical scienceGenealogyRegional scienceSociologyHistoryLawComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter focuses on the formation of modern regions as a precursor to the discussion of their transformation in later chapters. For those unable to think outside of positivist vocabulary, its dependent variable is the degree and character of differentiation among contemporary regional interstate societies. In line with mainstream approaches to International Relations (IR), by "region" I understand a geographically clustered subsystem of states that is sufficiently distinctive in terms of its internal structure and process to be meaningfully differentiated from a wider international system or society of which it is part. Region is a level of analysis located between the international system (global) level, and the unit (state) level. Like the state itself, region privileges a territorial mode of differentiation as a way of understanding world politics. The geographical element in the concept of region is crucial. Regions are not just any subsystem of states in an international system, but a specific type of subsystem defined by geographical clustering. The significance of geographical clustering rests on the idea that most types of interactions amongst units will travel more easily over short distances than over long ones. In historical terms, it is easy to see how invasions, migrations, pollutions, cultural penetrations, and suchlike have all worked more easily and quickly over short distances than over long ones. This means that, other things being equal, it is reasonable to expect that interactions amongst a regional cluster of states will be more intense than between those states and more distant ones. In a world historical context, this means that states and peoples who share a region are, again other things being equal, more likely to share a history and culture than are states and peoples further away from each other. By this definition, it is clear that the Commonwealth is not a region even though its members share some culture, and neither is the Alliance of Small Island States even though its members share some geographical features. Neither is the so-called "Third World". APEC (Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation) is sometimes referred to as a region, and so is the ASEAN Regional Forum, but both of these have memberships that are too large and too scattered to count as regions. A "region" that spans oceans and contains half the world stretches the concept beyond breaking point. Also worth noting is that regions would not exist if the political units comprising the international system were themselves mobile, as some, most notably the "barbarian" tribes of the premodern world, were. Regions presuppose that states are more or less fixed into geographic positions, and have to reach out from an anchored position.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207