MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035338392 · doi:10.1080/02255189.2001.9669952

Defending, Reclaiming and Reinventing the Commons

2001· article· fr· W2035338392 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Economy and Marxism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonsGrassrootsGlobal commonsSubsistence agriculturePolitical scienceCollective actionPolitical economyEnvironmental ethicsLaw and economicsSociologyGeographyLawPoliticsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT ABSTRACT This study addresses the following questions: Who destroys the commons? Why have the commons to be reinvented? Can there be something like global commons? What can 'new commons' be in rich industrialized countries? The authors argue that there can be no reinvention of the commons in the industrialized North without a defense of the commons in the largely subsistence-based South. They identify two opposed concepts of 'reinventing the commons:' first, that which means to defend, to reclaim and to reinvent the commons from below, through grassroots action of local people for local people; and, second, the concept constructed and invented from above, namely the concept of 'global commons,' which is being introduced by international agencies and global players, mostly for the benefit of TNCs. The authors conclude that commons cannot exist without a community but equally the community cannot exist without economy, in the sense of oikonomia, that is, the reproduction of human beings within the social and the natural household. Hence, reinventing the commons is linked to the reinvention of the communal or commons-linked economy. RÉSUMÉ Cette étude porte sur les questions suivantes: Qui a détruit la commune civile? Pourquoi doit-elle être réinventée? Existent-ils des biens publics globaux? De quoi s'agit-il quand on fait référence à la « nouvelle commune » dans les pays riches et industrialisés? Les auteures avancent qu'il est impossible de réinventer la commune dans le Nord industrialisé sans que celles du Sud, largement basées sur la subsistance, ne soient pas protégées. Elles présentent deux concepts opposés de la « réinvention des biens civils communs »: le premier, celui qui signifie défendre, réclamer et réinventer la commune civile par le bas, à travers l'action de la communautè locale à ses propres fins; et le deuxième, celui de construire et d'iventer à partir d'en haut, à savoir le concept des « biens publics globaux », qu'ont introduit les multinationales et leurs dépositaires dans la scène globale, essentiellement au profit des corporations transnationales. Les auteures concluent que la commune civile ne pourrait exister sans une communauté, mais que la communauté ne pourrait exister, non plus, sans une économie, dans le sens de l'oikonomia, c'est-à-dire, la reproduction des êtres humains dans leurs foyers sociaux et naturels. La réinvention de la commune civile doit donc être liée à la réinvention de l'économie communautaire ou à l'économie de commune civile.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.168 · 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