Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the relationship that the rise to hegemony of a Western standardised measurement of time has with the contemporaneous rise of the Western concept of territorial sovereignty. How does this relationship continue to shape debates over sovereignty in modern international politics both between states and within them, and is the concept of ‘temporal sovereignty’ an underappreciated topic in the field of International Relations? First, it explains how the standardised measurement of time has evolved throughout history and the factors that helped to facilitate moves towards a measurement of time based on precision and coordination of human activities. Second, it examines the link between territorial sovereignty and the standardisation of the measurement of time focussing on the imperatives of standardisation and the role states have in this process. Third, it describes the international time system as it exists today to understand what are the ‘rules’ and to what extent states conform to them. Finally, it discusses the concept of ‘temporal sovereignty’ and how states can and do use the standardisation of time to affect, influence, or control resources and people in three particular case studies: Canada, the Russian Federation, and the People’s Republic of China.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".