Explaining the Development of International Relations: The Geo-Epistemic, Historiographical, Sociological Perspectives in Reflexive Studies on IR
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
This article provides a state-of-the-art of ‘Reflexive studies on IR’, namely the research literature that has recently questioned the identity, traditional narratives, and conditions of knowledge production in the academic field of International Relations. Empirical accounts of International Relations’ existence make explicit the social and political relations that order the academic field as well as the biases and the myths that are perpetuated in associated scholarly practices and literature. To further our understanding of Reflexive studies on IR, this article delineates a typology of the main perspectives recently developed in this research agenda, namely the geo-epistemic, the historiographical, and the sociological. This typology is a valuable tool for analysis, synthesis, and further engagement. Reviewing these three perspectives also illustrates how Reflexive studies on IR can help scholars and students to extend their critical awareness towards the historical and current conditions of knowledge production, which reflects the understanding of science as a product of complex social interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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