Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rooted in the field of intellectual history, this article examines how the meaning of the North–South distinction has changed since its appearance in the 1960s. It explains how the largely consensual vision espoused during the early years has gradually given way to growing polarization and contestation. This evolution is unpacked by studying the genealogy of North–South narratives formulated through the ideologies of liberal internationalism and systemic reformism. The article shows that the 1960–1990 period brought about an international compromise regarding the existence of a North–South divide. Moving to the post-1990 period, the analysis then dissects the growing disagreements over the utility of the North–South terminology for interpreting the global order. While today moderate and radical reformists continue to argue that the North–South cleavage remains a structural feature of global politics, most liberals maintain that it simply fails to describe the real world. Overall, the article helps to clarify what makes the North–South distinction highly contested and nonetheless “sticky” in contemporary global affairs.
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 | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".