MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565525991 · doi:10.1163/1871191x-12341356

Virtually Virtual? The New Frontiers of Diplomacy

2016· article· en· W2565525991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jess Pilegaard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Hague Journal of Diplomacy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiplomacyTypologyPolitical scienceInternational relationsPublic diplomacySociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much excitement surrounds diplomatic neologisms such as e-diplomacy, digital diplomacy and even virtual diplomacy. This article reviews existing writing on the subject, with special focus on some of the ‘first movers’ in the new wave of information and communication technology ( ict )-enabled diplomacy, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. On this basis, the article suggests a rough typology of ict -enabled diplomacy, ranging from (new) public diplomacy to more advanced forms of digital diplomacy. The article subsequently explores a number of empirical examples of advanced forms of digital diplomacy — that is, ict -enabled diplomatic practices that are not necessarily grounded in a specific time and physical space. The article offers a few concluding thoughts on the possibilities and limits of digital diplomacy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Hague Journal of DiplomacySame topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207