Major-Power Status in the Modern World: India in Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A longstanding foreign-policy goal of India's elites has been to achieve major-power status for their country in the international system. Despite variations in the intensity of this ambition, in the application of the means to achieve it, and in the willingness to take hardline positions, this thread has been common in the policies of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors, especially Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Although Nehru often spoke against great-power politics, underneath his idealism lay a submerged realism about the potential of India to become a major power in the international system. Such a desire was evident in his pursuit of nonalignment, in his autarkic economic-development strategy, which placed heavy emphasis on the public sector and heavy industry, and in the prominence he gave to science and technology. The building up of the nuclear and space programs by Nehru and his successors has also been driven largely by the desire to become a major power. Among India's political parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been the most outspoken articulator of the goal of having India achieve a major-power position. Unlike the Congress leaders, the BJP top brass has not been ideologically constrained in proclaiming major-power status as an explicit part of its core policy objectives. One of the key reasons for the nuclear tests in 1998 by the BJP-led government was to achieve the party's longstanding objective of major-power status for India.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".