MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931661399 · doi:10.5287/ora-kzoqxdvmb

Stratified world-making in international relations: stratification, order, and power

2023· dissertation· en· W6931661399 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)International relationsConstruct (python library)PoliticsPower (physics)Social stratificationPhenomenonStratification (seeds)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis develops an account of a phenomenon called ‘stratified world-making’ in international relations. This account takes its cue from sociological studies of social imagery, while also building on extant accounts of stratification in world politics. Specifically, stratified world-making draws our attention to how state actors in international relations are attempting to discursively naturalise, reify, and impose their preferred stratified ‘social pictures’ or stratified ‘model of international society’ upon certain contexts so that their immediate interests become more easily realisable. These stratified models of international society are the hierarchical ‘mental maps’ that shape how actors perceive and interpret how international society is stratified. These images position not just the self but also others in ways that allow stratified world-makers to pursue their interests more effectively. I provide a general account of the politics of stratified world-making, theorising three general, recurring varieties or strategies of this phenomenon, each consisting of a particular stratified model of international society. The first of these is ‘middling’, which sees an actor attempting to impose a vision of the world as tripartite, with the actor claiming they hold a position in the ‘middle’ of this society in order to break out of the disempowering category of the ‘lower’ stratum. The second strategy is ‘reverse othering’, wherein subordinate actors construct a world of manipulative, corrupt ‘haves’, which are contrasted with the weak, poor, powerless, yet humble and deserving ‘have nots’, in order to facilitate some concessions to the ‘have nots’. The third and final strategy is ‘flattening’, which involves actors claiming that the world is one of ‘equals’, often to reduce the ability of stronger actors to do what they want to weaker ones. I empirically illustrate and explore the logic(s) of each of these strategies using an emblematic historical case study. ‘Middling’ is explored through Australian and Canadian efforts to suggest the international system was not composed only of ‘great’ and ‘small’ powers but also ‘middle powers’ in the 1940s. I analyse ‘reverse othering’ by examining how developing states constructed the world in the 1974 Sixth Special Session at the UN General Assembly about a New International Economic Order. The dynamics of ‘flattening’ are studied using Latin American states’ efforts to codify ‘sovereign equality’ and its attendant rights as a principle of international law in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The thesis makes a number of contributions to the literatures on stratification and stratified international orders. The first is the original conceptual framework and the three strategies of stratified world-making I identify. The second contribution qualifies conventional wisdom about the relationship between ambiguity and stratification. While existing accounts argue ambiguity can often be an obstacle to actors’ ambitions, my framework shows how the ambiguity, fuzziness, and indeterminacy of the social world also opens up opportunities for actors. Finally, the thesis opens up potentially fruitful pathways for practices of recognition and accommodation to satisfy the stratificatory ambitions of actors 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.038
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Same topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchFrench-language works237,207