Statehood as Process: The Modern State Between Closure and Openness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Patrick Glenn’s The Cosmopolitan State , the reciprocal relationship between ‘elements of closure’ and the ‘cosmopolitan way’ plays a central role. The goal of this chapter is to adopt his perspective on such tensions within statehood, in order to illustrate and concretize their reciprocal relationship in three areas: ‘knowledge’ and its generation and dissemination, ‘sovereignty’, and ‘citizenship’. These areas mirror the elements of closure identified by Glenn, namely, ‘boundaries’, ‘hierarchy’, and ‘writing’. Transposing these elements in such a manner helps to illustrate the sequence of processes that limit a cosmopolitan opening up of states. In all three examples provided, the actual ‘driving forces’ of ‘elements of closure’ are nationalization processes, whether this involves the nationalization of knowledge or the legal notions of sovereignty and citizenship, which function as indispensable requisites for the self-interested life of the nation state. With the processes of progressive economic interdependency, along with the increased mobility as a result of the development of transport and communication technology and transnational migration, these protective walls of national statehood have come under ever-increasing pressure. Ultimately, however, as this chapter will show, it took the idea of human rights as a globally valid legal concept to bring this bastion down.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".