MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386310202 · doi:10.1515/9781772122800

Seeking Order in Anarchy

2016· book· en· W4386310202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)Mathematical economicsComputer scienceMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"The idea of multilateralism is not something that can be forced on states, nor does it come naturally to them." —Tom Keating Seeking Order in Anarchy offers insights into both the theoretical foundations and the real-world outcomes of multilateralism in world affairs. Recognizing that Tom Keating’s theories, though rooted in Canadian foreign policy, have a broader application in international relations, Robert W. Murray has assembled an array of theoretical interpretations of multilateralism, as well as case studies examining its practical effects. Drawing from the insights of fourteen noted scholars and featuring an essay from Tom Keating himself, this volume examines the conditions that encourage states to adopt multilateral strategies, and the consequences of doing so in the context of increasingly complex global politics. Seeking Order in Anarchy is an important book for scholars, graduate students, policy makers, and anyone interested in how multilateralism functions in today’s world. Contributors: Francis Kofi Abiew, Edward Ansah Akuffo, Greg J. Anderson, David R. Black, Duane Bratt, Antonio Franceschet, Paul Gecelovsky, David J. Hornsby, Tom Keating, Christopher J. Kukucha, John McCoy, Robert W. Murray, Shaun Narine, Kim Richard Nossal, Matthew S. Weinert

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.025
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta Press eBooksSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207