Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global financial crisis of 2008 has strengthened the general impression that the decline of the United States and the rise of new powers such as China and India are simultaneously in progress. A shift in the balance of power must significantly affect the way of global governance. This is a subject of great importance in world politics. In the words of Robert Gilpin, ‘the fundamental problem of international relations in the contemporary world is the problem of peaceful adjustment to the consequences of the uneven growth of power among states’. Since around 2010, scholarly attention has been paid to the impact of emerging new powers on global governance. One of the very first books is the volume under this review, Rising States, Rising Institutions: Challenges for Global Governance. This edited volume is the second book that was produced by the collaborative work between the Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) – a Canadian think tank based in Waterloo, Ontario – and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University. (The first book from this partnership is Can the World Be Governed? Possibilities for Effective Multilateralism.)
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".