MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2948129436 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhz439

Or Rosenboim. The Emergence of Globalism: Visions of World Order in Britain and the United States, 1939–1950.

2019· article· en· W2948129436 on OpenAlexaff
Talbot Imlay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionGlobalismSovereigntyPoliticsEmpirePolitical scienceDemocracyPluralism (philosophy)Political economySociologyLawEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Or Rosenboim’s The Emergence of Globalism: Visions of World Order in Britain and the United States, 1939–1950 offers an “intellectual history” of globalist “visions of world order” in Britain and the United States during the 1940s (2). Beginning in the late 1930s, a time of escalating international tensions, a host of British and American thinkers turned their attention to the subject of international order, a process bolstered by the onset of the Second World War. The urgent task became that of recasting international relations in order to create a more peaceful, more stable, and even more just world. The result, as Rosenboim’s stimulating study indicates, was a profusion of “visions” that shared several features: a suspicion of unrestrained national sovereignty; a view of democracy as fundamental but also potentially problematic in its practice; and a dawning recognition that the future did not belong to empires. But for Rosenboim the most telling commonality of these visions is their attention to a globalizing “political space,” conceived of as overlapping forms “progressing from the state to the region, the empire, the federation, and finally the universe” (20). Although people in earlier periods had thought about global order, Rosenboim argues that the 1940s constituted a “foundational moment” (282) because of the “moral claims” advanced regarding “the normative value of both universalism and pluralism” (280). The thinkers she examines strove to imagine a postwar world whose political configuration would recognize and even foster the myriad political, social, and cultural differences among peoples, while also ensuring that individuals, wherever they were, possessed some minimum of common rights and obligations. It is no coincidence that the visions of world order under study contrasted sharply with those associated with the Axis states (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan) as well as with the Soviet Union.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.010

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical Review→Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→