Globalizing Oil, Unleashing Capital: An International History of the 1970s Energy Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores the transformation of the world order during the 1970s through the prism of the First Oil Shock. It is premised on the paradox that, until 1973, successive U.S. administrations had relied on Venezuela and Canada as the country’s main energy partners and had actively restricted oil imports from the Middle East. However, with the promise of Saudi petrodollars inflows, the U.S. ended these longstanding partnerships and tied its economic fate to that of the Persian Gulf. This dissertation follows this shift and its long-lasting consequences: Not only did the U.S. make itself vulnerable to the Arab oil embargo, but the First Oil Shock gave rise to the world’s current monetary architecture, entangled the U.S. geopolitically in the Persian Gulf, and destabilized the Middle East by spawning the Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs. With an interdisciplinary, multi-archival and multilingual approach, drawing from the archives of several states, corporations, and international organizations, this project argues that the 1970s Energy Crisis was a major period of transition in world order in which the U.S. lacked an overarching or coherent grand strategy, being at the mercy of decisions taken in foreign capitals and corporate boards from Caracas and Riyadh to Paris and Tehran. And yet, through ad-hoc improvisation and the consolidation of a U.S.-Saudi financial partnership, the U.S. reasserted its claim to global leadership, all while creating an opportunity for interest groups to test ideological agendas hinged upon liberalizing, deregulating, and financializing the international economy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".