Bibliographic record
Abstract
The policy process in Libya is complex and intensely personalised around the figure of the Libyan leader, even if it also relies on a structured consultation process. Libya's foreign policy fits within this paradigm as well, as our research amongst Libyan policy-makers has demonstrated. Yet, despite its apparent unpredictability, it abides by three basic principles that interact with each other: opportunistic constancy, national self-interest and ideological commitment. Whilst the correlation between the first two elements is linear and progressive, their correlation with the third is inverted and retrogressive although they can condition and shape it as well. Actual relations form four inter-connected conceptual circles covering the Arab world, Africa, the West (Europe and America) and the BRICs (Russia, China, Latin America and Asia). Thus relations with the Arab world and Africa are suffused with ideological import alongside Libya's pragmatic objectives in Africa, whilst with Europe and America they are conditioned by pragmatic constancy based on oil and international acceptance. With the world of the BRICs, some of Libya's old visions of anti-imperialism have resurfaced but commercial concerns still dominate interrelationships. The personalised nature of foreign policy decisions has been powerfully reflected in recent years in Libya's bilateral relationships, as Bulgaria, Britain, Canada and Switzerland have recently discovered. They reflect a deep insistence that Libya and its leader should be taken at their own evaluation. Where this has not happened, Libyan displeasure has been manifest, the degree of displeasure being tempered only by a pragmatic and opportunistic consideration of possible adverse consequences. Overall, however, the constant and underlying theme since the 1990s has been regaining international acceptance, one which, even if its content is diametrically opposed to the patterns of that past, reflects the objectives of the 1970s and 1980s as well.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".