Diplomacy and the Mythology of the State: A study of Canada-Taiwan relations and the State concept in anthropology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper the author seeks to deconstruct the idea of the State concept as seen by Hobbes' Leviathan which he argues still permeates writings in both anthropology and political science.He does so by conducting an anthropology of diplomacy and looking at the complexity of the unofficial relations between Canada and the government on Taiwan.Stretching from very public legislation both in Canada's Parliament and courts, to much harder to quantify aspects such as lobbying and the importance of private interests, the gray space which constitutes the Canada-Taiwan relations becomes a clear example of the lack of understanding of the State concept as a centralized power and coordinated apparatus.Indeed it is the purpose of this paper to show that there are too many factions, factors and actors at play for the Leviathan metaphor to be viable in the modern era in which we live in.It is by widening our understanding of the concepts of sovereignty, audience and power as well as accounting for the social and cultural background of any country that we can begin to better understand what a State is and through what means it functions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".