Caught between vulgar and effete realists: Critical theory, classical realism and mythographies of power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores conceptual conflicts embedded in the thematic grounding of classical realism. To establish conditions of consistent normality in human political behaviour for realist analysis, the rhetoric of originary political wisdom usually ties its claims, as a research framework, to myth and enlightenment. Because Thucydides, Machiavelli or Hobbes articulated the premises of political realist analysis in the contexts of state formation, anarchic regional politics and perpetual war, these first figures of political authority seem to have set terms of geopolitical analysis that erase context, arrest temporality and homogenise space by pointing analysis back to classical events, thinkers and struggles in mythic terms. Critical theorists ask if such mythic styles of reasoning are a credible approach, even though many accept such modes of analysis. Consequently, this study explores how myth affects political realist studies to question how statecraft perpetuates itself on reason, myth and their contradictions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".