Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although there is some disagreement, a remarkable consensus exists that IPE as a formal subject of study emerged in the late 1960s or early 1970s, as the Bretton Woods system was dissolving. This chapter interrogates such a consensus by considering why modern IPE failed to materialize as an organized subject of enquiry after World War II, when there was a demonstrable calling for knowledge of the type it provides. To explore this puzzle I establish that an ongoing academic conversation was available through the work of three eminent intellectuals who would today be clearly recognized as IPE scholars: Karl Polanyi, E.H. Carr and David Mitrany. Although they all advanced distinct IPE-centered ways of framing the central problems of the post-1945 world, their work failed to launch a systematic and coherent conversation about IPE because of the absence of key conditions for this to occur. There are two lessons which we may draw from this case: disciplines require institutional homes from which to carry out “conversations,” and, more controversially, these homes might best be assembled within an architecture provided by a single discipline rather than within multi- or inter-disciplinary venues in which few agreed-upon rules exist.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".