MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114170700 · doi:10.1177/03058298070350030401

Political Sociology and the Problem of the International

2007· article· en· W2114170700 on OpenAlexaff
Didier Bigo, R. B. J. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueMillennium Journal of International Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)PoliticsSociologyArticulation (sociology)SovereigntyEpistemologyField (mathematics)International relationsLaw and economicsPolitical economyLawSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper revisits the multiple theoretical antagonisms mobilised by a claimed opposition between the international and the global/local so as to elaborate the stakes of working through traditions of political sociology that have been marginalised in most forms of international relations theory. The paper especially addresses the contribution of recent work on the social production of limits and borders and the re-articulation of practices of exception. Resisting conventions of international theory predicated on Schmittian accounts of limits in territory and law, the paper assesses recent claims about sovereignty, security and liberty informed by a reflection about the way concepts of field and dispositif may be used in an analysis of the boundaries of contemporary politics. To this end, the paper draws attention to the topology of a moebius ribbon as an especially suggestive comparison with topologies affirming clear distinctions between internal and external sites of sociopolitical life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.064
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations111
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMillennium Journal of International StudiesSame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207