MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Por que ler Hobbes como um teórico de segurança internacional?

2010· article· pt· W2008591266 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueContexto Internacional · 2010
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Political Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thomas Hobbes tornou-se uma figura canônica para teorias de segurança internacional, ainda que seus escritos digam relativamente pouco acerca do que chamaríamos hoje de um sistema internacional. Este artigo sugere que Hobbes permanece importante para a análise de segurança internacional, assim como para a teoria política de modo mais geral, não por desenvolver qualquer teoria coerente de Relações Internacionais, mas sim porque sua consideração sobre a soberania de Estados particulares exige uma análise sobre as condições de possibilidade externas de tais Estados. Uma política após Hobbes precisa tratar dos efeitos constitutivos de sua filosofia da história particular. Assim, este artigo propõe uma leitura política de Hobbes, a qual enfatiza sua importância para o pensamento da política moderna e de suas condições de possibilidade; de suas origens e limites, que são também nossas origens e limites enquanto sujeitos modernos.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.331 · 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