Different Realities: Academics, Politics, and International Relations
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
Abstract Since the conception of International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline it has been characterized by prodigious interaction between academics and practitioners with the former often spending time in the policy arena before focusing on pedagogy. While a high level of interchange is held to be a defining characteristic of the American system, concern has been growing that there is an ever-widening gap between academics and practitioners and between theory and practice. Responding to the danger of a ‘me-cleaver-you-stupid’ form of theoretical and academic superiority, William Wallace conjectured his view of academic “semi-detachment”. In spite of a long history of government-academy co-operation, many social scientists are becoming increasing removed from the world of policy and action. This essay demonstrates that despite the subsequent criticisms levelled at Wallace, his general line of argumentation provides valuable insight into assuming a more useful and positive trajectory not only for scholars within the discipline but for the very field of IR itself.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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