MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diplomatic Rank

2018· other· en· W4235566624 on OpenAlex
Francis M. Carroll

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

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Diplomacy · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiplomacyPrestigePrivilege (computing)ConventionLawPolitical scienceRank (graph theory)Order (exchange)Power (physics)PoliticsPhilosophyMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diplomacy and the categories of diplomats can be traced back to ancient times. In the early modern era national prestige and diplomatic rank became linked, giving rise to the need to establish agreed upon rules of rank and privilege in the conduct of diplomacy. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the Congress of Aix‐la‐Chapelle in 1818 defined four classes of diplomat: ambassadors, envoys, ministers, and chargés d'affaires , in descending order. In 1961 the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations codified these ranks in a tighter order of three: ambassadors, envoys/ministers, and chargés d'affaires ; and new rules for matters of diplomatic precedence, privilege, and immunity were established. Historically and under the current provisions of the Vienna Convention, rank confers upon diplomats gradations of status and authority, as well as privilege and immunity, that shape diplomatic relations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.312 · 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