MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108160253 · doi:10.1080/13600826.2014.983047

Mind the (Theoretical) Gap: On the Poverty of International Relations Theorising of Uneven and Combined Development

2014· article· en· W2108160253 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInternational relations theoryInternational relationsScholarshipGeopoliticsField (mathematics)SociologyAnalogyPovertyEpistemologySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawPoliticsPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The uneven and combined development (U&CD) approach in International Relations (IR) claims to offer a solution to the question of “the international” with a single, coherent theory capable of uniting both sociological and geopolitical factors in the explanation of social change. The approach thus claims to provide what IR theorists have long been searching for: a social theory of the international. While acknowledging the importance of this research programme to the field of IR scholarship, this article argues that the U&CD approach takes for granted what needs to be theorised, failing to provide the theoretical solution to the “domestic analogy” problem it so powerfully identifies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it