MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103238924 · doi:10.1177/0192512113494728

The Internet: A new route to good governance

2013· article· en· W2103238924 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Khazaeli, Daniel Stockemer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Political Science Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetAccountabilityCorporate governanceScrutinyInternet governanceTransparency (behavior)PoliticsPublic relationsFunction (biology)BusinessPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In examining the relationship between Internet use and governance across different regime types, the article emphasizes the Internet’s potential to improve governance. Through a pooled time-series analysis of more than 170 countries with annual or biannual data from 1996 to 2010, we establish that countries with higher Internet penetration rates generally enjoy better, more stable governance, regardless of regime type. Our finding has both practical and theoretical implications. More practically, our results strongly entertain the possibility that the Internet improves access to information, accommodates pluralistic sources of information, and produces platforms for political discourse. Our findings also suggest that the Internet’s concomitant facility for reporting and scrutiny in the public sphere may encourage leaders to improve transparency and accountability. More empirically, the article introduces an additional variable to the good governance function, which should be included in future analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Political Science ReviewSame topicLocal Government Finance and DecentralizationFrench-language works237,207