Leadership Styles and International Agenda-Setting: Understanding Small-State and Middle-Power Leadership on the Responsibility to Protect
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 Small states and middle powers suffer from a “power deficit” that leaves them with limited means and opportunities to exercise coercive power in international relations. Nevertheless, a growing number of studies has documented the success of these states in influencing international affairs. This study examines how different leadership styles matter for small-state and middle-power agenda-setting in international affairs. Drawing on recent advances in management theory and foreign policy analysis, we construct a typology of foreign policy leadership styles. Rather than viewing leadership as the personal style or characteristic of an individual leader, we understand leadership as positional, relational, and processual styles. We apply our typology to Canadian, Swedish, and Danish diplomatic activities to promote and influence the Responsibility to Protect agenda in the UN. We find all three leadership styles, but a dominance of processual leadership, especially enabling leadership, which supports the creation of emergent fora in which ideas and concepts can develop among different kinds of actors and the transmission of insights from these fora back into a more formalized context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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