L’explication interthéorique en relations internationales : quelques jalons pour une synthèse du réalisme structurel américain et de la géopolitique française contemporaine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural realism is currently at the center of international political theory in the United States. Sociological interpretations of ethnocultural or linguistic hegemony aside, this scientifically rigorous theorizing can stand on its intrinsic merits and is destined to exercise a major influence on future efforts to construct explanatory models of international political relations. This article sets out why that is so by drawing a profile of a viable deductive macrotheory of Interstate politics. The new realist theory is distinguished from its more overtly normative and prescriptivist antecedents which sought to come to terms with the contending claims of power and ethics in world politics and from the self-conscious scientism of earlier Systems thinking which emphasized unit-processed interaction patterns. Structural realism has broken free from the holistic organicism of Systems theory, tributary to biological models, to align the theory-building enterprise with the more successful formal structuralism of the physico-chemical sciences which places a premium on the generic description of logico-mathematical group structures arrived at through the inventive deduction or axiomatic decision of their constituent unit s. The exemplar text of American structural realism posits a form of what Piaget called 'relational' structuralism predicated on distributions of power resources among the international System's unit s. This focus on internal or necessary asymmetric relations between and among polarizing and dependent units renders structural realism a choice object for synthesis with inductively generated geopolitical constructs which stress microstructural configurations of relative capabilities. The current wave of geopolitical writing in the French language is drawn on to demonstrate how the procedures of intertheoretical reduction can be employed to enrich structural realism's explanation of system-level constraints on state action via the introduction of a spatiotemporal component.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".