5. Globality and Transnational Policymaking in Agriculture: Complexity, Contradictions, and Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I attempt to take account of the suggestions of numerous globalization theorists that some core concepts need to be reworked as part of the process of developing knowledge of globalization.I introduce the concept of a 'transnational policy space' in exchange for more usual political science concepts like 'multi-level governance' and 'policy community'.It is a bit of an experiment and definitely preliminary, but I found the exercise useful.I then seek to show how the concept might work by describing developments in agriculture policy in the postwar period, arguing that such a transnational policy space has gradually emerged in this policy field.I would appreciate any comments members of the Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition and team members of the Globalization and Autonomy project might have on this work.The paper has been through a form of peer review.An earlier version was presented at a conference on "Reconfiguring Authority in the 21 st Century" held at the Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto in March 2002, under the able direction of two of the scholars from the Globalization and Autonomy team, Edgar Grande and Louis W. Pauly.A revised version was presented at a second conference of this group held at the Technische Universität München in October 2002, again under the able leadership of Professors Grande and Pauly.I am indebted to all the participants at these two conferences for their comments.Professors Grande and Pauly gave me additional constructive feedback, which I used in preparing this version of the paper.They are preparing a volume entitled Reconstituting Political Authority: Complex Sovereignty and the Foundations of Global Governance based on the papers at these two conferences.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".