American strategy towards the world order after the Cold War. Digest of World Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the end of the Cold War, the United States emerged as a country with the greatest economic and military capabilities, which was eager to play an active role in restructuring institutions of international order. This article aims to assess the U. S. record from the 1990s till mid — 2010s in global governance, assessing the main changes in its strategy during this period. The paper is organized mainly in accordance with a chronological principle. However, considerations on the American policies are preceded by the exploration of the theoretical discussion on the main contradictions in the attitude of major powers towards international orders. After that, the strategies of three U. S. administrations dealing with global economic regulation and institutions for maintaining international security are consistently analyzed. The paper demonstrates that during the last quarter of a century the United States pursued a wide range of policies towards international institutions. The environment in which Washington conducted its foreign policy changed dramatically, reducing its ability to direct the restructuring of international norms. Nevertheless, the U. S. approach, at least in part, was shaped by the strategic choices made by its leadership. Moreover, Washington’s policies throughout this period clearly diverged from expectations set in the theoretical literature as they included a major revisionist component.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".