MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898965908 · doi:10.1177/0010836718807503

Metis diplomacy: The everyday politics of becoming a sovereign state

2018· article· en· W2898965908 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gëzim Visoka

Bibliographic record

VenueCooperation and Conflict · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDublin City University
KeywordsSovereigntyConceptualizationPoliticsPerformative utteranceDiplomacyInternational relationsMetisState (computer science)Sovereign stateSociologyPolitical sciencePolitical economyVariety (cybernetics)LawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How do emerging states obtain international recognition and secure membership of international organizations in contemporary world politics? Using the concept of ‘metis’, this article explores the role of everyday prudent and situated discourses, diplomatic performances and entanglements in the enactment of sovereign statehood and the overcoming of external contestation. To this end, it describes Kosovo’s diplomatic approach to becoming a sovereign state by obtaining international recognition and securing membership of international organizations. Drawing on institutional ethnographic research and first-hand observations, the article argues that Kosovo’s success in consolidating its sovereign statehood has been the situational assemblage of multiple discourses, practiced through a broad variety of performative actions and shaped by a complex entanglement with global assemblages of norms, actors, relations and events. Accordingly, this study contributes to the conceptualization of the everyday in diplomatic practice by offering an account of how micro-practices feed into macro-practices in world 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.038
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations40
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCooperation and ConflictSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207