The Interactions of International Relations: Racism, Colonialism, Producer-Centred Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The racial hierarchy underscoring colonialism persists, organises core-periphery interactions and so undermines International Relations' (IR's) purpose of accounting and explaining to mitigate violence.Despite IR's awareness of its colonialism, it reconstitutes in the hermeneutic's deductive and inductive method via aphasia (calculated forgetting) about its heuristic: diplomacy.The result, analytic-violence or the core's heuristic corrupting interaction with the periphery.Yet, its evasiveness testifies to a meaningfulness beyond IR's hermeneutic.Irretrievably corrupted by its heuristic, IR's hermeneutic is ejected for an altogether new hermeneutic: Producer-Centred Research (PCR).Eschewing deduction and induction, and so colonialism, PCR initiates with abduction or a problem arising from theory and practice to resolve it in terms of rationality because of its, and the problem's, significance.Changing "rationality" to "rationalities" registers the core's rationality as colonialism while preventing it from contaminating PCR's collection and assessment of peripheral practices to determine if they cohere into another rationality.Moreover, treating peripheral practitioners authoritatively, as capable of rationalising themselves and thus equal to rationality, further protects PCR from aphasia.Verifying efficacy shows PCR's decolonisation of the hermeneutic is not entirely replicated externally, amongst IR scholars.The core engages PCR, but it incites violence in the periphery which defends rationality and so is colonialism's bastion, now.
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 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".