Localization in World Politics: Bridging Theory and Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This Introduction and Special Forum highlight the importance of localization for the study of world politics, both as a theoretical concept in international relations research on norms and as a set of practices and policies. The article tackles four questions: (1) Why has localization become a focus of scholarly and policy attention? (2) What are the historical precursors of localization? (3) What is being “localized” and who/what is “local”? And (4) how can localization be studied (i.e., using which methods and approaches)? After unpacking common functionalist, normative, and strategic arguments in favor of localization and situating the concept historically, we develop a novel relational conception of localization as both a process and an outcome. Our central objective is to bridge the diverse meanings and uses of the term that exist across theory and practice. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives and empirical examples from forced migration, humanitarianism, the protection of civilians, transitional justice, and Women, Peace and Security, we consider key dilemmas and challenges facing both the academic study and practice of localization and identify several methods and approaches that can be used to analyze this important topic in world 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it