MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022778607 · doi:10.1177/0010414014554690

Conceptualizing Cooperation

2014· article· en· W2022778607 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Political Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGerman Marshall Fund of the United StatesAmerican-Scandinavian Foundation
KeywordsShadow (psychology)PoliticsCapitalismCollective actionCorporatismState (computer science)SociologyPositive economicsPolitical economyPolitical scienceEconomic systemEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite recognizing that institutionalized cooperation is central to both business and politics in many advanced, industrialized economies, scholars remain divided over the origins, character, and future of “non-liberal” capitalism. This article seeks to clarify these debates by arguing that different processes of cooperation are governed by distinct logics of collective action and associated with different dynamics of collaboration. For example, coordination, or cooperation in production, is harder to create but more likely to facilitate companies’ upmarket movement. By contrast, concertation, or cooperation in policy making, is more amenable to state intervention but less durable. The analysis is based on detailed case studies of Germany and Ireland, which vary in their relative reliance on concertation and coordination. Selected references to shadow cases—displaying neither or both forms of cooperation—complement the analysis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.347
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.176 · 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