Bibliographic record
Abstract
How are cultural changes put forward by so-called 'Utopias' accepted by political elites and then implemented through political decisions or international treaties ? This historical process has often been dealt with via two separate disciplines : sociology and political science. In this article, the author has chosen to use the new paradigm of global politics, i.e., the "issue paradigm", as his general framework of analysis. This article comprises two parts. First a theory of political change - culturally induced. Four concepts of change and progress are examined (Saint-Pierre, Kant, Condorcet and Bentham). This leads the author to the formulation of a new concept: " counter-decision", which can be defined as "a minor concession pulled through socially organized utopian movements from still reluctant political elites, at the very time when History is shaken by some kind of crisis such as war". The total process consists of four successive stages which are: intellectual maturation, socialisation, counter-decision, and new policy which is the final stage of political change culturally induced. The second part of the article gives a historical illustration of this four stages process, examples of which are the European unification, arbitration, collective security, disarmament, arms control, law of war and humanitarian law. These empirical illustrations reveal that Saint-Pierre, Kant, Condorcet and Bentham were all correct in their respective interpretation of progress. It also means that, in politics, cultural progress is at one and the same time rationally thought, reached through a dialectical process, cumulative or determinist in some aspects, if equally debated, and thus voluntarist.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".