Bibliographic record
Abstract
Norway's status is puzzling. Traditionally, Norway has been conceived of as a small power with limited foreign policy alternatives at its disposal due to the constraints of the international system. However, Norway's newfound wealth coupled with its explicit focus and leading figure in multilateral cooperation, diplomacy, international law and peace promotion suggest that Norway is something more than a small power. This thesis applies a modified neoclassical realist framework for conceptualising and analysing status and middle powers. This approach emphasises both the materiality and social aspects of status. It seeks to overcome the bias’ that arise from drawing on a singular approach laden with researchers pre-conceptions, this study triangulates the alternative methods measures to pioneer a more rigorous and balanced metric of status measures than has been used before in the status and middle power literature. The thesis shows that Norway's material capabilities, operationalised as hierarchical status resources, have risen significantly the last 40 years, but fail to reach the levels of established middle powers such as Canada and Australia. Norway's behaviour, operationalised as moral authority output, is either larger or equal to that of the established middle powers. Measuring the level of international recognition, however, the thesis shows that despite the increase in hierarchical status resources and consistently high moral authority output, Norway's standing in the international system is actually decreasing. This discrepancy is puzzling given the strong empirical and theoretical link between material capabilities and behaviour on the one hand and status on the other. The thesis suggests that Norway's recognition discrepancy stems from three potential sources: (1)Norway's foreign policy does not stand out compared to the other 'like-minded' countries Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden; (2) Recognition is likely to follow a regional pattern, suggesting that states will recognise countries that they perceive are regionally dominant; (3) Recognition and status attribution tend to lag behind the actual hierarchical status resources and moral authority output, suggesting that Norway's low recognition is a direct consequence of low historical standing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".