Sites of Knowledge (Re-)Production: Toward an Institutional Sociology of International Relations Scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his 1998 article, The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline , Ole Wæver suggested to assess the development and organization of the International Relations (IR) discipline through a three-tier comparative sociological research framework. It is by looking at the intellectual, institutional, and political layer of IR, so he argued, that one can fully understand the specificities of IR as a complex social field of work as well as the particular forms of knowledge that are developed in this field. In the years following its publication, Wæver’s article was joined and followed up by a growing and increasingly sophisticated body of literature studying IR scholarship. Yet, a thorough reading of this literature shows that the emerging sociology of IR has come to focus strongly on only two of Wæver’s three analytical layers: It is the intellectual and political layers of IR that garnered significant attention thus far, whereas work about the field s institutional layer remains surprisingly scarce. This forum seeks to address this gap by means of promoting a dedicated engagement with the field’s institutional determinants: How is the institutional layer of IR organized in different places? How is the discipline embedded in distinct sites? And how is it governed by material and immaterial institutional constraints? To answer these questions, the forum s six individual contributions focus on conventional university departments and hybrid sites of international relations alike. In doing so, the forum s ambitions are both to highlight the empirical diversity of sites and settings where specialized knowledge about international relations is produced, shaped, and re-instantiated, and to illustrate how a focus on the institutional layer of IR can become an important vector for opening up the literature to insights from related fields of study.
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.060 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".