International Relations Theory and the Practice of International History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years the field of International Relations (IR) has been enriched by an ‘historical turn’ as scholars have directed their attention to the origins of the discipline. During the same period a number of scholars of International History (IH) have borrowed concepts from IR theory in order to provide new perspectives on subjects such as great power relations in the era of the French Revolution or the origins of the Second World War. These trends have led to the suggestion that we are witnessing a new and exciting convergence of research in these two fields. The chapter shows that the early relationship between the emerging fields of IH and IR was characterized by remarkable convergence. After 1945, however, the two fields diverged as IR evolved into a distinct and self-confident discipline and IH focused increasingly on the origins of world wars. Many of the reasons for this divergence can be understood in terms of this Handbook’s two framing themes: modernity and granularity. Enduring challenges remain to systematic inter-disciplinary collaboration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".