MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249925969 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790751

Left and Right in Global Politics

2008· book· en· W4249925969 on OpenAlexaff
Alain Noël, Jean‐Philippe Thérien

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2008
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsLeft and rightOpposition (politics)Political sciencePolitical economyNew RightMetaphorArgument (complex analysis)New LeftInternational relationsSociologyLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few notions are as universal as the idea of a left-right divide in politics. Despite its death being frequently foretold, the left-right metaphor remains the most common lens through which to interpret political life locally, nationally and globally. Left and Right in Global Politics argues that the left-right divide connects these different levels into a world political debate. Interpreting the left-right dichotomy as an enduring debate about equality, Noël and Thérien analyse opinion polls and social discourses to demonstrate how this debate shapes both individual and collective views of public affairs. Setting their findings in a historical perspective, they then show that for more than two centuries the conflict between progressives and conservatives has structured both domestic and international politics. They conclude by discussing the implications of their argument for the analysis of world politics, and contend that the left-right opposition is here to stay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations172
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicEuropean Union Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207