The Weakening of the Hegemon and the Future of the Liberal International Order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hereby paper presents a theoretical approach to the U.S.–China geopolitical rivalry as the process of dispersion of power from the hegemon to the challenger [Allison] that may toward, through the sphere of influence fragmentation processes, to the polycentricity of the international relations system. In this work the author presents a new theoretical approach to the U.S.–China political rivalry understood as a key element of a process of changing the model of the global hegemonic leadership, shaped most fully since 1991. The paper presents the concept of two theoretical levels – the rational strategy and the political vibrancy – which are a necessary context for identifying the nature of given decision-making processes of the main subjects of contemporary international relations. Thus, through the abovementioned concept the sino-american relations are explained within the methods that are being used by states with particular emphasis on analyzing the operations of the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, the author reasons why China is withdrawing from the use of soft power – understood in the terms of J. S. Nye’s – and why it primarily uses the linking power and sharp power [Walker, Ludwig]. The article ends with a summary in which author, based on the information presented, tries to answer the question – why the liberal international order remains uncertain (or is about to fail).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".