Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this volume is to broaden the scholarship on regions and regional change. We seek to move away from the “war of paradigms,” to address regional transformation through an intra- and inter-paradigmatic exchange. Each International Relations (IR) theoretical paradigm, whether from the realist, liberal, or constructivist tradition, can only partially account for patterns of regional conflict and cooperation. A natural division of labor has emerged in the study of regional security, where realists tend to focus on the likelihood of war and stability, liberals on the conditions leading to peace, and constructivists on the foundations of long-lasting or deep peace and the emergence of pluralistic security communities. Together, these theoretical traditions unevenly cover the broad empirical spectrum of regional transformation. Instead of opting for a division-of-labor approach, based on each theory’s comparative advantage, the contributors to this volume were tasked with answering a common set of questions and encouraged to relax their theoretical assumptions so as to offer middle-range eclectic approaches. The objective was to bring the authors outside of their comfort zone and engage each other in an effort to provide a richer analysis of regional change.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".