Bibliographic record
Abstract
One essential attribute of our definition of statehood is fixed territoriality. Like the state itself, this is a relatively new phenomenon, one that is historically unique. The lineal, surveyed borders that separate contemporary states are a practice going back only to the seventeenth century. Territorial limits of most historical empires, traditional kingdoms, city-states, and tribal and lineage groups were mostly floating zones of indeterminate extent. Traditional Chinese conceptions of territory, for example, bore little relation to those that underlie the doctrines of contemporary international law. For them, territory was defined primarily in cultural terms. The Chinese world was one of hierarchy, with the Han civilization in the middle and the barbarians on the peripheries. Since there was constant intermingling and movement of populations, the exact location between centers and peripheries could not be established in lineal terms. Malcolm Anderson (1996: 88) explains: Imperial China … held the view that the empire had two frontiers, an inner and an outer. The latter was the limit, sometimes fanciful, of Chinese influence or, as in the steppes of central Asia, indicated the limit of temporary Chinese occupation. The outer limits of Chinese influence did not necessarily imply that the Chinese had the intention of occupying the territory up to this frontier. It was a conception of the boundaries of “the Chinese world.” China was typical of pre-modern polities in the sense that its rulers defined themselves primarily in terms of centers rather than peripheries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".