Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Realism is conventionally understood as coldly accepting the powerful dominating the weak. Reversing this image, I argue that Realism contains an implicit ethos of resistance. Drawing on a recent scholarship on the historical complexity and diversity of classical Realism in international relations (IR), this article uncovers this ethos by focusing on three shifts of perspective: (1) from an extreme to moderate view of power politics; (2) from naturalizing the status quo to envisaging progressive change; and (3) from a horizontal view of politics among nations (or other horizontally situated entities) to a global image of power politics. I then explore how these shifts exist in a different scholarship, the emergence of a so-called new Realism in political theory. The article builds a conversation between classical Realism in IR and the new Realist philosopher Bernard Williams’ work, finding that both articulate an ethos of legitimate resistance to domination. The significance of the Realist ethos is that it challenges stereotyped images of the tradition justifying domination and injustices, and it inserts and positions a Realist voice in recent debates over human rights to resist in global 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".