Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical methodology of cosmopoliticization describes a new theoretically guided approach of empirical analysis to capture phenomena and quality of cosmopoliticization. The study and interpretation of cosmopoliticization and cosmopolitanism needs a critical pivot that draws on empirical issues and social facts to some extent to advance the theorizing of notions of cosmopolitan governance and democracy. First, I substantiate the rationale behind a new critical methodology of cosmopoliticization. Then, I argue that the sources of real-world insights of cosmopolitan practices and experiences can be derived from empirical analyses of three major subject matters, namely the formation of cosmopolitan solidarity, ethos, and belief, the role of cosmopolitan public spheres, and international democratization through civil society participation and deliberation. These analytical categories and units can convey cosmopolitan values and principles that are critical of a significant cosmopolitan departure from dominant nation-state related paradigms and politics because they embody an impetus for recognition and esteem of the ecological and ethical value and meaningfulness of the entire earth system for humankind in terms of a right conduct and practice in present and future.
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 | 0.035 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".