Why does society describe itself as global? Re-examining the relation between globalization and the states from a second-order perspective
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
The article uses the second-order perspective developed by Niklas Luhmann to re-examine the relation between globalization and sovereign states. From a second-order perspective, globalization is redefined as a self-description of society supported by the practice of comparing sovereign states with other sovereign states for the purpose of determining what is global at the present moment in time. The article develops a genealogy in order to account for this particular practice of comparing states with each other in historical terms. The genealogy proceeds by treating the states as spatial units within spatial divisions, while four distinct types of spatial division are discussed and aligned in one sequence: stratified, heterogeneous, homogeneous and meta-division. In some cases, not all spatial units are states. Accordingly, states are not always or not only compared with other states. In this way, the genealogy shows that the practice of comparing states in action behind globalization as a self-description of society is linked with the last two forms of spatial division specifically.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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