Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the United States perceives a threat to international security and calls on its allies for military assistance, how do they respond to such requests? A conventional view of alliances as instruments of control wielded by powerful states would suggest that secondary partners are likely to fall in step with U.S. plans or suffer the consequences of disappointing their patron superpower. Yet, since World War II, U.S. allies have pursued varying levels of military commitment in U.S.-led wars—ranging from nonparticipation to full-scale cooperation—without causing any apparent long-term damage to their alliance relationships. To crack this puzzle, Stéfanie von Hlatky develops a neoclassical realist theory that elucidates how U.S. allies navigate between the Scylla of American expectations and the Charybdis of domestic constraints. She then evaluates this theory empirically through qualitative analyses of the United Kingdom's, Canada's, and Australia's initial responses to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Von Hlatky's theory rests on three claims. First, power asymmetries between the United States and its democratic allies can generate divergent assessments of international threats, where the former gauges developments in terms of its global ambitions while the latter prioritize more circumscribed sets of concerns. Second, when such disagreements arise, U.S. allies face strong reputational incentives to respond favorably to requests for military support, given the value of American protection. Third, their ability to respond favorably is significantly mitigated by two domestic-level factors: the autonomy/cohesion of foreign policy decision makers and the availability/suitability of military capabilities. This argument generates three predictions: first, full-scale participation in U.S.-led wars is likely when allied states have both a highly autonomous/cohesive leadership and available military capabilities that satisfy U.S. operational needs; second, limited participation is likely when allied states have either a weak leadership with strong military capabilities or a strong leadership with weak military capabilities; and third, nonparticipation in likely when allied states have both a weak leadership and limited military capabilities.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".