Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally assumed that an academic discipline passes the threshold of maturity when it becomes self-reflective regarding its deep-seated presuppositions, theoretical developments, and practical consequences. Agents, Structures, and International Relations by Colin Wight skillfully proves this point. Wight's main objective is to provide a comprehensive ontological investigation of the basic units and processes that underpin the theory and practice of international relations. Given that the epistemological differences that structure theoretical debate in international relations (IR) are dependent upon prior ontological positions, it becomes imperative to examine the social ontologies that are embedded within dominant theories of the field, along with the epistemological and methodological consequences associated with them (pp. 7–8). The central argument that Wight develops in Agents, Structures, and International Relations is that by losing sight of ontology in favor of epistemology, IR scholars have fundamentally misapprehended the role of theory in explaining international politics. Human action and social life occur at four different levels: material, intersubjective, social role, and personal subjectivity (pp. 296–298). Each of these levels has distinct causal and moral responsibilities and, therefore, overarching theories that attempt to explain the totality of interactions in the international system are rather “impossible projects” (p. 294).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".