Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Realism is generally seen as one of the most influential theories of international politics. Military and foreign policy officials adhere to the apparent timeless insights of realism. They stress the importance of power, especially military power, and the need to ensure the survival and security of the state. Ontologically, realism depicts a hostile world of power-seeking states. Some realists explain this in terms of human nature while others emphasize the anarchical structure of international politics. The chapter begins with a brief overview of the development of realist theory from Thucydides, who was an Athenian military official, to the present day. The next section explains the various epistemological, methodological, and ontological positions that realists hold. Next, the common elements that comprise the essence of realism will be identified: rationality, statism, survival, and self-help (the three S’s). In the third section, the differences between two variants of realist theory, classical and structural realism, are explained. In the conclusion the timeless wisdom of realism is revisited by considering the rise of China and the implications this has for international order.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".