Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world of international security works quite differently from the point of view of its practitioners than from that of the distant observer. As this book has shown, interstate pacification is less about people representing one another as part of the same “we,” than it is about joining together in the increasingly commonsense enactment of diplomacy. Practices always rest on an engagement with the world inherited from past interactions and framed by social configurations. By emphasizing practical logics, I certainly do not deny that the theoretical point of view also sheds crucial light on political processes, not least by making sense of practicality in a larger historical and contextual perspective. But this analytical incisiveness requires that social scientists, and more specifically IR scholars, pay equal attention to the logic of practicality in world politics. In this concluding chapter I want to do three main things. First, I shall wrap up the book's key arguments and highlight in particular how my theory of practice of security communities helps understand the fundamentally hysteretic nature of NATO–Russia diplomacy in the post-Cold War era. Second, I shall briefly return one last time to my case study in order to glean a few policy-relevant insights from my Bourdieu-inspired analytical framework. Third, and finally, I shall address the implications that practice theory raises for IR theory in general. Far from a competing paradigm, practice theory actually overlaps in innovative ways with some essential parts of existing theories.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.144 | 0.047 |
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".