MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230317676 · doi:10.22151/politikon.24.8

America

2014· article· en· W4230317676 on OpenAlex
Lana Perić

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitikon IAPSS Journal of Political Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Political and Social Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyEmpirePower (physics)Political scienceGeorge (robot)Political economyLawSociologyPoliticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topic over whether or not the U.S. can be considered an imperial power has been largely debated over since the aggressive foreign policy tactics observed by former President George W. Bush. Since then, an anti-American attitude has had many accusing the U.S. of attempting to build an empire. The problem with many arguments is that they often inaccurately portray the idea of imperialism or the arguments are made with little understanding of the American institutions and how foreign policy is made. This research paper hopes to present the idea that there are various branches of imperialism to consider and that the United States have exhibited a liberal imperialist behaviour. To prove this thesis, this paper will show how the foreign policy system of the United States is altered to the external events in the world and that has assisted the United States in acting as a liberal imperial power.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.323 · 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