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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Narrative approaches to International Relations have steadily increased in popularity in recent years. As narrative has gained further acceptance among other methodological traditions in International Relations, it has also provoked questions about the sort of restrictions that should be placed on academic writing in general and narrative writing in particular. Narrative approaches have faced challenges that ask whether they allow room for critique or if they necessarily turn into standpoint epistemologies. This author views narrative approaches as both valid and necessary in addition to the stable of other methods utilised in International Relations scholarship. However, in order for narratives to contribute effectively, they must be subject to critique. This article proposes two questions that both authors and readers should ask when engaging with narrative: 1) Does the narrative disrupt notions of congruity in political thought? Does it bring to light contradictions that may otherwise be ignored? 2) Does the narrative make room to incorporate those who have been excluded from political science discourse? Through asking these questions, International Relations scholars who utilise narrative approaches can open the field to novel lines of inquiry.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it