Data for: Defending hierarchy from the Moon to the Indian Ocean: Symbolic capital and political dominance in early modern China and the Cold War
<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> You are a research archivist expert in dataset metadata. Answer the question truthfully.  <|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'We execute our strategy of comparing explanations drawn from our theory to those drawn by generalized families of competing explanations, as well as rival explanations driven by idiosyncratic features of the specific cases, in an analytically similar but empirically different manner. In both cases, we test our theory’s explanatory power against rival explanations using a framework drawn from recent advances in the qualitative literature; we refer to this strategy as a “folk Bayes” approach (detailed more in the Supplementary Information) and argue that it allows us to isolate observations in which our theory better predicts observance (or lack of observance) of clues associated with the case compared to rivals given intuitively plausible prior beliefs.The differing levels of documentation available in each case (even befor' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> {"Answer" : ["influence","international conflict","international relations","political influence","power","space exploration"]} <|eot_id|>
 Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'We execute our strategy of comparing explanations drawn from our theory to those drawn by generalized families of competing explanations, as well as rival explanations driven by idiosyncratic features of the specific cases, in an analytically similar but empirically different manner. In both cases, we test our theory’s explanatory power against rival explanations using a framework drawn from recent advances in the qualitative literature; we refer to this strategy as a “folk Bayes” approach (detailed more in the Supplementary Information) and argue that it allows us to isolate observations in which our theory better predicts observance (or lack of observance) of clues associated with the case compared to rivals given intuitively plausible prior beliefs.The differing levels of documentation available in each case (even befor' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.
We execute our strategy of comparing explanations drawn from our theory to those drawn by generalized families of competing explanations, as well as rival explanations driven by idiosyncratic features of the specific cases, in an analytically similar but empirically different manner. In both cases, we test our theory’s explanatory power against rival explanations using a framework drawn from recent advances in the qualitative literature; we refer to this strategy as a “folk Bayes” approach (detailed more in the Supplementary Information) and argue that it allows us to isolate observations in which our theory better predicts observance (or lack of observance) of clues associated with the case compared to rivals given intuitively plausible prior beliefs.The differing levels of documentation available in each case (even befor
influence; international conflict; international relations; political influence; power; space exploration