Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary international relations theory is the result of recent works of synthesis with classical political thought, international law, history, and even psychology and biology. While some of these developments, like evolutionary psychology, can prove detrimental to the its development, I find that international relations theory has surpassed most of its moments of crisis, and is characterized more than ever by pluralist thought. Paradigms continue to hold power on researchers, but most of them produce non-paradigmatic theories. It can be concluded that IR theory is still at the beginning (because of the inability of its researchers to draw an accurate view of the discipline itself), we actually observe a positive evolution in the fact that IR is evolving towards a more inclusive and complete science, a science that can offer more answers at practical level, and that the variety of these responses offers a guarantee against their misuse.
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 | 0.034 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".