Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise of a new state to the status of a major power has invariably been turbulent. In fact, almost all of the present-day major powers have achieved their status through victory in war with other major powers. Major-power status is often accorded to the leading members of a winning coalition in a postwar settlement. All the current major powers, or the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the P–5), were in such a coalition at the end of World War II. Although China was not a leading member in this coalition, it was part of the war against the Axis powers and was accorded the status due to US insistence. The major-power system has, however, been frozen since 1945, and with no third world war in sight it may remain so in the foreseeable future. As discussed in the previous chapter, India, with its subcontinental size, large population, economic and military strength, leadership role among the developing countries, and diplomatic activism at the UN and other international forums, is indeed the strongest contender for future major-power status among all the potential candidates from the developing world. In the developed world, Germany and Japan remain strong contenders, but several structural, normative and institutional factors act as constraints on their projecting or actively asserting their position in the short and medium terms.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".