MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129361808 · doi:10.18352/ijc.79

Path dependency and collective action in common pool governance

2009· article· en· W2129361808 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tim Heinmiller

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of the Commons · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective actionCommon-pool resourceContext (archaeology)Corporate governanceSocial capitalDependency (UML)Action (physics)Resource (disambiguation)BusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsGeographyMicroeconomicsPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collective action among resource users has long been identified as a basic element of successful common pool governance, and one of the main concerns of common pool research is the identification of factors that affect collective action. Among the most commonly identified factors are trust, social capital, common preferences, shared knowledge, collaborative experiences, focusing events and expectations of future interactions. Thus far, however, relatively little attention has been paid to the historical-institutional context of collective action and the constraining effects of path dependency. Path dependency suggests that investments and adaptations in early resource management institutions can make it difficult for actors to abandon these institutions, thereby influencing and shaping subsequent collective action efforts. This article examines the impact that path dependency can have on collective action in common pools, by examining transboundary water management in the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia, the Colorado Basin of the US and the Saskatchewan-Nelson Basin of Canada. In all three cases, early transboundary water apportionment institutions have proven strongly path dependent, significantly shaping subsequent collective action efforts at transboundary water conservation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations59
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of the CommonsSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207