Bibliographic record
Abstract
If the tension between realism and liberalism provides the main axis of debate within international studies, there is also a series of critiques that have been addressed to one or both of these approaches. Two lines of analysis have been paramount in that regard. One line starts with the post-modern work inspired by Foucault and others, and is represented for instance by the writings of Rob Walker. It then winds itself through the Habermasian critical theory exemplified by the work of Andrew Linklater, and finally culminates in the constructivist literature mainly identified with Alexander Wendt’s work. The goal of that literature is to show that a series of assumptions about the nature of knowledge, identity, and interest underlie both realism and liberalism, and that these assumptions are historically specific in that they stem from particular historical and intellectual developments. The logic of power, human identity, rationality, and suchlike, which the realists and the liberals build on all these starting premises, are thus themselves historically contingent. What they present as universal elements of international politics on the basis of that logic remains, in that sense, nothing more than the effect of particular circumstances and conditions. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".