MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diplomacy

2021· reference-entry· en· W4213020580 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2021
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiplomacyBureaucracyState (computer science)Political scienceForeign policyPower (physics)TreatyLawEconomic historyPoliticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early modern Europe witnessed profound changes in the institutions, conduct, and personnel of diplomatic relations between polities. In general, there was a shift to diplomacy becoming a constant, regular activity of the state, and, bureaucracies, protocols, and archives related to the conduct of diplomacy emerged across Europe. While it was far from universal, the exchange of resident ambassadors, attached to foreign courts and governments more or less permanently, became a regular feature in European statecraft. Many diplomatic exchanges remained ad hoc, carried out by extraordinary envoys, and asymmetric diplomacy was still common into the 17th century. Although genuine professionalism in diplomatic service was hard to detect, by the end of the 17th century the major European states had developed secretariats of state and foreign ministries, sectors of government dedicated to the prosecution of overseas affairs. A genuine “culture of diplomacy” was in place. This view of an emerging modern European diplomacy was shaped, and largely remains so, by a seminal work from the mid-20th century, Garret Mattingly’s Renaissance Diplomacy, first published in 1955. While Mattingly did not evince a comprehensively Burckhardtian break between the Middle Ages and Renaissance, he did locate the origins of modern diplomacy in 15th century Italy, with the use of residency by Italian territorial states. He saw the Habsburgs as the chief heirs to the Italian diplomatic system in the 16th century, with a Europe-wide model based on the principle of balance of power in place after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The bibliography that follows reflects the deep and abiding influence of Mattingly’s state-centered model, but also the many innovations and departures associated with the “new diplomatic history.” This recent work has embraced a more expansive understanding of what constitutes diplomacy, who qualifies as a diplomatic agent, how diplomatic sources should be interpreted, and what facets of diplomatic exchanges are worthy of study. In so doing it has complicated and refined Mattingly’s vision. Several of the sections below concern specific historiographical thrusts of the new diplomatic history. The best work in early modern diplomatic history, however, remains rooted in the extraordinary richness of its source material, especially the millions of pages of correspondence that provide a real-time window into the early modern world. Vincent Ilardi, who did so much to bring attention to the enormous promise of examining Renaissance Italian diplomatic correspondence, once wrote, paraphrasing Braudel and with tongue wedged only half in cheek, that Renaissance diplomatic history might in fact offer a sort of histoire totale. There is something in it for everyone.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistorical Influence and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207