MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944942260

Presidential Foreign Policy Networks: A Social Network Analysis of American Foreign Policy

2017· article· en· W2944942260 on OpenAlexaff
Henry E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueStudent Research Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresidential systemForeign policyAdministration (probate law)PoliticsOrder (exchange)Period (music)International relationsPublic administrationPolitical scienceLawSociologyEconomicsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper applies practice theory to assess the evolution of American foreign policy. It does so by examining the daily schedules of President Truman. Data has been collected from the Truman Presidential Library’s daily appointments calendar. The author has reviewed the daily presidential appointments of President Truman from April 12th, 1945, the day in which President Truman assumed the role of President, to January 20th, 1953, President Truman’s final day in office. The assumption derived from practice theory is that the President will be more willing to talk to dignitaries from states they have strong relationships with, and thus the quantity of interactions will be indicative of an administration’s relationships with other states.  This paper uses social network analysis to assess whether the theoretical assumptions of practice theory can effectively capture the expansion of American diplomatic relations in the post-war period described by G John Ikenberry in Liberal Leviathan and Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition.   Discipline: Political Science Honours Faculty Mentor: Dr. Jean-Christophe Boucher

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.413 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudent Research ProceedingsSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207