Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionWhat does it mean to be resilient in a societal or international context?Where does resilience come from?From which discipline was it "imported" into International Relations (IR)?If a particular government instrumentalises the meaning of resilience to its own benefit should scholars reject the analytical purchase of the concept of resilience as a whole?Does a government have the monopoly of understanding how resilience is defined and applied?This book addresses these questions.I develop a novel understanding of what resilience is and its added-value in world politics.To do so, I have chosen an approach that is both eclectic and multidisciplinary, borrowing insights from disciplines as varied as psychology, engineering, social work and ecology.A pluridisciplinary perspective on resilience moves away from a disciplinary silo and rather limiting understanding by legitimising and reinforcing a cross-disciplinary dialogue.It allows and encourages scholars to seek "external" correctives to their own literature gaps and go beyond in-field incomplete and reductive positions, as we shall see later.Resilience in IR is not new.For example, in the 1990s Robert Powell underscored that for neoliberal institutionalism "international institutional history matter," i.e. that "the cost of changing or constructing new regimes thus gives existing regimes some resilience to shifts in the balance of power." 1 Peter Hasenclever and his colleagues contend that international institutions may be more effective or less, and "more or less robust (or resilient)."For them, "regime robustness (resilience) refers to the 'staying power' of international institutions in the face of 1 Powell, Robert, "Anarchy in
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.368 | 0.164 |
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".