MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907206136 · doi:10.1093/ia/iiy269

Introduction: world politics 100 years after the Paris peace conference

2019· article· en· W2907206136 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret MacMillan, Anand Menon, Patrick Quinton-Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Affairs · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHegemonyPoliticsTreatyPolitical scienceInternational relationsEconomic historyGlobalizationState (computer science)Political economyPower (physics)ParallelsOrder (exchange)DemocracyGlobeLawHistorySociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One hundred years ago the Treaty of Versailles, the centrepiece of a set of treaties and agreements collectively known as the Paris peace settlements, was signed in the glittering Hall of Mirrors in the former home of France's Sun King. For some, the war those settlements brought to an end was a distinct period in international relations, one dominated for the preceding century by a European state system that had endured since the Middle Ages.1 While relations among the Great Powers included a degree of cooperation, even some shared values, the European-based international order at its height in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was characterized by a balance of power within Europe and imperialism around the globe. Anniversaries can impose a misleading unity on a period of history, but every so often it is useful to reflect on where we once were—in this case as an international order—what has changed, and where we might be going now. The year 2019 is, as we are realizing with unease and concern, a time of transition and strain in both domestic and international politics. The backlash against globalization, the rise of intolerant and anti-democratic populisms, the tensions between rising and declining powers, the withdrawal of the United States under the present administration from its hegemonic role in the world: all are calling into question norms and institutions underpinning a world order that many of us had taken for granted. There are suggestive and sometimes troubling parallels between 2019 and 1919. At both junctures, the world was seeing a retreat from globalism, the rise of nativist and populist political parties, demands from national movements for their own states, the spread of international revolutionary movements—Bolshevism then, radical Islamism today—and concerns about the international order or lack of one. Constanze Stelzenmuüller of the Brookings Institution speaks of a ‘concerted attack on the constitutional liberal order’.2

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.024

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational AffairsSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207