Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy : a case study of Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis focuses on existing middle power theories, which are available in the International Relations literature and their applicability to the so-called emerging powers. Despite the increasing attention being devoted to 'emerging' powers such as Brazil, China, India or South Africa, no suitable theoretical framework for the study of this category of states has been established to date. Rather, it has been customary to apply existing middle power theories, which were advanced in the 1980s and early 1990s to account for the forms of power exercised by countries like Canada and Australia, to the study of emerging powers. Yet, it is the overarching this thesis that, despite some attempts at revising middle power theory to suit the distinction between the 'traditional' middle powers and the 'new' or 'emerging' powers, they have not provided satisfactory explanations for the forms of power that emerging powers exercise in the international political economy. To overcome this problem, a set of hypotheses are developed for the study of emerging powers that are embedded in an analytical framework that originates from the New Political Economy approach. Since the New Political Economy approach offers an understanding of structure and agency as mutually constitutive, and of power to exist in both material and ideational form, it is seen to provide a 'broader' insight into the different forms of power exercised by emerging powers than that granted by existing middle power theories.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.026 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".