Subnational governments in international affairs: a study on theory and practice of paradiplomacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has become commonplace to assert that the participation of regions (subnational units) (provinces in Canada, cantons in Switzerland, oblasts in Russia, landers in Germany, etc.) in international relations is one of the clearest examples of the globalization processes. This kind of activity has often been called “paradiplomacy.” The aim of this PhD dissertation is to examine the theoretical dimensions of paradiplomacy in the academic discourse of the last four decades, which appeared in the North American and European political science literature on federalism, regionalism and international relations. Through a systematization of the different approaches to the understanding of constituent diplomacy, I try to build in my dissertation project an integrative theoretical explanatory framework that can guide research on regional governments’ involvement in international affairs. In terms of empirical analysis, my PhD project tackles the case study of paradiplomatic activities of the province of Alberta in Canada in order to complement my focus on the theoretical dimension. The scholarly contribution of my PhD dissertation project is important first for all those who study federalism, multi-level governance and IR; the comprehensive examination of the phenomenon of paradiplomacy sheds light on the development of federalism and multi-level governance in a new global environment and contributes to the debates on the issue of “actorness” in contemporary international affairs. One of the most significant results of the dissertation is the constructed explanatory framework that can be used as a guide for the study of the external activities of different subnational governments in various contexts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".