MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117447133 · doi:10.1177/0022002703252980

Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989

2003· article· en· W2117447133 on OpenAlexaff
William B. Moul

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Conflict Resolution · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParity (physics)AlliancePoliticsPower (physics)Balance (ability)Empirical evidencePolitical economyPurchasing power parityPolitical sciencePositive economicsEconomicsLawPsychologyPhysicsEpistemologyMacroeconomicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical study has worn essential theoretical edges from the power transition theory and rival balance-of-power theories, leaving a misshapen question: does parity in quantitative power capabilities of opposing individual states discourage or encourage war between those two states? Distortions of both theory and evidence—mixing balances of power with balances of terror; overlooking political geography, political incapacity, and alliance formations; and confining observations to state-dyads—render the evidence poor and weak. When the distortions are removed, the very strong evidence is that approximate parity in power capabilities encouraged war between great power disputants between 1816 and 1989.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Conflict ResolutionSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207