MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307693719 · doi:10.1177/13540661221133976

Kant’s domestic analogy: international and global order

2022· article· en· W4307693719 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Regan Burles

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of International Relations · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnalogyInternational relationsPoliticsEpistemologyOrder (exchange)GeopoliticsGlobeSociologyGlobal politicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawEconomicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The domestic analogy is an old but persistent problem in theories of international politics. This paper examines the problem in the work of Immanuel Kant, whose political writings are often cited as a paradigmatic example of the analogy between individuals and states. Attention to Kant’s own conception of analogy, however, shows that the political writings are structured by another “domestic analogy”—between international and cosmopolitan right. This analogy, I argue, is based on a correspondence between the systematic unity of the international and the spherical globe, the figure that for Kant represents the boundaries of world order. International and cosmopolitan right are thus distinguished on the basis of a geopolitical criterion: the global scope of international order. This analogy of order, the paper argues, thus works to domesticate world politics through the structural form of international order. To the extent that contemporary theories of international relations rely on this conception of order, they accept Kant’s answer to the problem of perpetual peace. The paper concludes by drawing broader conclusions from the analysis about the domestic analogy, international order, and world politics.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of International RelationsSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207