Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter responds to the many different Foucault’s animating the work presented in the preceding chapters by drawing attention to the many different versions of an international that are also present, but also to some that are absent. It also responds to the tension within Foucault’s own work between both his often cosmopolitan interests and sympathies and his resistance to reified categories of statist politics, on the one hand, and his systematic concerns with specific statist contexts and Eurocentric traditions on the other. Picking up on various comments made in the preceding chapters, as well as on Foucault’s brief engagement with Thomas Hobbes, the analysis works toward an ambivalent conclusion: that while Foucault did have much to say about phenomena that might be called international in some senses, other and arguably more important senses of the term receive only cursory attention. Nevertheless, given the degree to which what we call an international is now subject to considerable spatiotemporal rearticulation, many of Foucault’s conceptual innovations and methodological tactics offer powerful resources for political analyses that seek to elude heavily reified accounts of what both the modern state and the modern international must be. 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".