An Evaluation of Holsti’s Concept of Foreign Policy Restructuring: Has FPR Been Sufficiently Covered in the Arab World?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using Holsti’s pioneer work on the concept of foreign policy restructuring (FPR) as the yardstick theoretical framework, the article critically assesses its impact on the literature with particular emphasis on the Arab World. The article’s aim is to solve the puzzle involving the diffident reference to Hoslti’s work, the extent to which FPR has been covered in the Arab World and, in case of a modest contribution, the factors causing such lack of attention to that particular field of study in the region. It specifically questions the existence of an explicit substantive and geographical literature gap, notwithstanding the efforts of successive scholars, the centrality of the Arab region, and the tremendous changes that hit a number of countries within it since the end of 2010 and on. Such state of affairs, not only amplifies the heavy cost of the current gap but also loudly echoes urgent calls to address it. The hypothesis is that such situation is inherently due to structural limitations within Holsti’s work and the scarcity of subsequent efforts to develop the concept further as well as, as far as the Arab World is concerned, regional inherent methodological factors. The author will follow an analytical and descriptive approach to trace the available literature with emphasis on Holsti’s work and key subsequent efforts. The article concludes by underlining the urgent need for a fresh and continuous work on studying FPR in the Arab World considering the critical role that part occupies in global politics.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".