The Oil Hegemonic System and Game Theory: Regional versus Trans-regional Powers in the Middle East
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite having the largest reserves and forecasts for undiscovered hydrocarbon energy resources in the world, which highlights global energy dependence on the Middle East, a distinct lack of cooperation between regional governments is accompanied by incoherent energy policies and governmental processes that enable trans-regional powers (mainly, Western powers) to dominate resource exploitation and “win the game.” A lack of cooperation between Middle Eastern oil producing countries as well as attendant competition and rivalry allows significant leverage for Western powers to pit one Middle Eastern country against another; thus, permitting Western energy hegemony in the region. Using game theory and a qualitative analytical approach, the authors posit that trans-regional powers, to their advantage, have hegemonic control over regional Middle Eastern powers that maintain the pace of energy production to supply growing demands for predominantly western consumption. The Middle East countries will continue to lose the “game,” especially Iran and Saudi Arabia, if they do not reconcile differences and exploit options for regional cooperation. Such a modification in relations would allow coherent policies and governmental structures to institutionalize and reverse the current trend for extrinsic hegemony.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".