Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article highlights the key role of intellectuals of statecraft – the politicians, academics, consultants, and pundits who regularly participate in and comment on the practice of international affairs – in the practice of geopolitics. These professionals command the institutional and cultural resources required to project particular geopolitical arguments as informed and authoritative. We, therefore, need to carefully unpack the ways in which they influence world politics. To focus on intellectuals of statecraft is not to assign superior or authentic knowledge to them or to needlessly glamorize the high places they inhabit. It is rather to analyse the practices that function as expert and legitimate in public debates. To this end, we need to examine not only what intellectuals of statecraft do or say, but also the institutional and cultural resources that they deploy in their daily practices. The article suggests some strategies for how such contextually rich accounts could be produced.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".