Structure et conflit en politique internationale : Une analyse séquentielle des crisees internationales de 1929 à 1979
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most intractable debates in the field of world politics concerns the linkage of systemic structure to international conflict. The dialogue has focused on the relative merits of bipolar versus multipolar and, more recently, polycentric structures. Advocates of each System have their adherents and, for some time now, have agreed to disagree. Most of the debate over structure and conflict thus far has been cast in terms that do not facilitate its resolution. The objective of this study is to work toward a more compelling empirical judgment of the competing claims. Specifically, that involves revision of the central concepts. Structure cannot be assessed only in terms of distribution of power; the concept also should incorporate the notion of autonomous decision centres. With respect to conflict, most commonly referred to as instability, war is held to be a less comprehensive measurement than international crisis. Renewed testing focuses on the linkage of structure to conflict as so defined. Data from the International Crisis Behaviour Project on 280 cases from 1929 to 1979 provide the evidence to compare the phases of structure. The differences that emerge among multipolarity, bipolarity and polycentrism with respect to patterns of conflict are generally consistent with theoretical expectations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".