World Order Debates in the Twentieth Century: Through the Eyes of the Two-level Game and the Second Image (Reversed)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a somewhat unconventional grand framework under which to understand world order, in particular the dialectic framework of international relations. By dialectics I mean approaches to world order, with emphasis on interactions among competing forces within international relations and domestic competition. My objective in applying the two-level game and the second image game and second image reversed to the state strategy of leading powers is to examine and analyze the long-term evolution of world order in the extended 20th century period 1890–2025. My aim is to enrich the existing picture of this evolution in international relations in the last century. More specifically, by focusing on the leading powers within different timeframes of this extended century—Britain in the 19th century, and the United States for the best part of the 20th century, especially the last quarter, and at the dawn of the 21st century—I present a broadly gauged picture of leading powers who, frustrated and challenged by dissidents at home and abroad (sometimes called have-nots), respond by modifying their state strategy by accommodating, placating, and/or suppressing dissident activities in efforts to prolong their leadership status.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".