Pança - Relações Internacionais e Direito Internacional antes, durante e depois da Guerra Fria* **
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Don Quixote Meets Sancho Panzaagain – International Relationsand International Law before,during and after the Cold War This article deals with the relation between the academic disciplines ofInternationalRelationsandInternationalLawinahistoricalperspective,sothat an accurate comprehension of the current interdisciplinary debate canbe brought to the fore. Thus, conventional conceptions about the maintheoriesofInternationalRelations–realismandliberalism–arediscussed,and those theories are presented in a new light. Liberalism is conceived inthe context of the convergence of international politics scholars andinternational lawyers until the development of a skeptical view in the fieldof International Law, which is responsible for the creation of realism inInternational Relations. The post-Cold War interdisciplinary debate isfocused through three distinct theories: institutionalism, liberalism andconstructivism. We argue that constructivism is more able to develop adeeper cooperation between international politics scholars andinternational lawyers. That is due to the connections betweenconstructivism and critical theory, what allows joining constructivists andcritical legal theorists in a Critical Agenda for International Relations andInternational Law in this beginning of the Twentieth-First Century.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".