Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, the field of comparative politics generally has retreated from grand explanatory models and narrowed its scope and research ambitions (Katznelson, 1997; Lichbach, 1997). This is particularly evident in the structural–historical approach as well as in the increasingly influential rational choice and postmodern approaches to comparative research (Kohli et al., 1995: 2; Lijphart, 1970: 682–93; Skocpol and Summers, 1980: 174–97). The 1995 World Politics Symposium, at which leading comparativists gathered to discuss “The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics” was clear evidence of this trend. Many analysts deemed the construction of theory, or the “messy centre” in comparative politics, problematic and some realized the attractiveness of alternative approaches (Kohli et al., 1995). As Katznelson noted of recent comparative scholarship, “compared to the work of their predecessors… scholars in comparative politics have shortened their time horizons, contracted their regime questions, and narrowed the range of considered outcomes” (Katznelson, 1997).
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 | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| 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".