Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating Methodology in International Studies offers a unique collection of original essays by world-renowned political scientists. The essays address the state of the discipline in regard to the methodology of researching global politics, focusing in particular on formal modeling, quantitative methods, and qualitative approaches in International Studies. The authors reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of current methodology and suggest ways to advance theory and research in International Studies. This volume is essential reading for methods courses and will be of interest to scholars and students alike. See table of contents and excerpts (/ir/millennium/methodology.html). Frank P. Harvey is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University. Michael Brecher is the R.B. Angus Professor of Political Science at McGill University and past president of the International Studies Association. Millennial Reflections on International Studies (/ir/millennium/) This volume is part of the Millennial Reflections on International Studies (/ir/millennium/) project in which forty-five prominent scholars engage in self-critical, state-of-the-art reflection on international studies to stimulate debates about successes and failures and to address the larger questions of progress in the discipline. Other paperbacks from this project: Realism and Institutionalism in International Studies (/titleDetailDesc.do?id=8893) Conflict, Security, Foreign Policy, and International Political Economy: Past Paths and Future Directions in International Studies (/titleDetailDesc.do?id=8890) Critical Perspectives in International Studies (/titleDetailDesc.do?id=8882) The full collection of essays is available in the handbook Millennial Reflections on International Studies (/titleDetailDesc.do?id=17045).
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 | 0.469 | 0.640 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".