The Muskoka G8 and Toronto G20 Summits, Accountability, and Civil Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hajnal P.I., Research Fellow at the Centre for International Studies, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada); E-mail: peter.hajnal@utoronto.ca This paper examines the role and impact of civil society in increasing the accountability of the G8 and G20, with particular emphasis on the 2010 summits: the back-to-back June Muskoka G8 and Toronto G20 summits, and the November Seoul G20 summit. The paper begins with a clarification of the key concepts of civil and uncivil society, and accountability. It then discusses for what and to whom the G8 and the G20, as global governance institutions, are accountable. This is followed by a look at the kinds of civil society organizations (CSOs) that play a role in the nexus with the G8 and G20. It then considers the motivations for, and range of, civil society interaction with the G8 and G20. Finally, the paper analyzes how and to what extent civil society engagement has, (or, as the case may be, has not), had an impact on the G8 and G20 accountability. Brief concluding observations end the paper.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".