Squeezed or revitalised? Middle powers, the G20 and the evolution of global governance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If global affairs are, indeed, moving towards a multipolar system, in which power coalesces around a small number of dominant poles (USA/EU/brics in the global South), then middle powers may well find themselves relegated to a subordinate role. Yet, at odds with this expectation, the role of particular traditional and non-traditional middle powers has become revitalised. This is in large part because of the nature of the global order after unipolarity under US dominance. Unlike past moments of transition, the current reconfiguration has not been made explicit by violent disruption. Moreover, unlike past concerts of powers, select middle powers have gained access to the G20, the hub site of transition in global governance. Membership in the G20 facilitates agency in terms of issue-specific forms of policy leadership, although the mode of operation by middle powers in utilising this space differs from country to country, as illustrated by the cases of Canada and South Korea.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it