Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization, it is frequently noted, has eroded traditional understandings of state sovereignty. In the words of David Held and Anthony McGrew, it has ‘unbundled’ the relationship between sovereignty, territory and political power and made the ‘proper locus of politics and the articulation of the public interest … a puzzling matter’. Today, this is also the case in the field of security. While frequently seen as the last secure bastion of sovereignty in a rapidly globalizing world, the state’s much-vaunted monopoly of legitimate force is increasingly enmeshed in networks and relations that cannot be contained within the boundaries of the national state. Across the globe, from mega-cities to isolated resource production facilities, security provision and governance take place within assemblages that are deterritorialized in terms of actors, technologies, norms and discourses and are embedded in a complex transnational architecture that defies the conventional distinctions of public–private and global–local. Security, in other words, is increasingly beyond the state. As part of transformations in global governance and shifting social forces, private security has become integral to contemporary power and politics. The key issue is no longer the familiar one of whether or not the state is losing power and sovereignty in a zero-sum game with non-state actors. As we have shown, the new geographies of power cannot be reduced to a simple question of more or less state power or weakened domestic government, in the manner of so much early scholarship on globalization and security privatization. Instead, they demand an investigation of the production of new modalities of power through which the very categories of public–private and global–local are reconstituted and reconfigured.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".