Tests of Global Governance: Canadian Diplomacy and United Nations World Conferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is unique in its use of UN World conferences as a testing ground in the study of global governance. It provides a detailed examination of the conferences with respect to the interface between diplomatic method and new forms of global governance. Because of the complex dynamics involved in these large international conferences, a number of important theoretical debates central to the study of international relations are highlighted. Using Canada as a case study the work demonstrates that global governance is a differentiated multi-spectral site of activity within which states and non-state actors alike, particularly NGOs, play vital, often conflicting roles. The main focus is on the span of activity from the 1992 Rio UNCED conference, through the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights, the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, the 1995 World Summit for Social Development, and the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women, to the 2001 Durban World Conference on Racism. The picture that emerges, while not translating into a complete recipe for a shift towards democratic governance, suggests a deepening network of institutions, actors, and organizations forming the complex regimes that govern the major arenas of world politics. At a country-specific level, the analysis supports the view that a deep residue of multilateralism still exists in Canada but argues that this tradition faces on-going challenges from a variety of sources.
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 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".