The Power of Hegemon: the Role of Discourse
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores one of the central issues of current international discourse : how is world order sustained and maintained, is it shifting and changing, is it being reinvented and reimagined, or are we on the cusp of global disorder and competition among great and small powers? The conventional lens used to examine these questions is that of ‘hegemony’ or ‘dominance.’ This paper discusses how hegemony is conceptualized, what kinds of resources are mobilized (material, discursive, institutional, and performative) in maintaining hegemony, and what the current chessboard of geopolitics looks like in terms of rising and falling powers. Despite a chaotic picture of the train derailed there is also an optimistic end of that story. First we are moving from a unipolar to the polycentric world. Secondly that new world will be less dramatically divided as it will be based on macro-regional arrangements. Thirdly multi-regional arrangements will be closer civilizationally and thus less prone to conflicts. Finally - in order to survive - most probably they will voluntarily keep close ties with other macro-regiond making the system more stable that today.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it