National transparency: Global trends and national variations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nation-states worldwide are institutionalizing a culture of transparency and accountability. In our analyses of data reported in the United Nations (UN) Statistical Yearbooks since 1970, we identify two main trends: (1) national governments are providing a greater amount of data on a larger set of social, political, and economic domains, and (2) national governments increasingly offer such data in accordance with international standards introduced by the UN. In addition, we find that the overall cross-national trend toward transparency and accountability, as measured by the standard reporting of national accounts to the UN from 1970 to 2000, is driven by a unique set of factors in each time period. Specifically, domestic and economic conditions drove the trend toward transparency before 1990, whereas political factors have driven transparency since then. Throughout the period studied, the presence of links between a given country and world society has increased the likelihood that it will engage in transparent reporting. We conclude that active networking with international governmental organizations, such as the UN, teaches governments the norm of transparency, inculcating them with the rationales of public accountability and proper governance.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".