The Globalized Complexities of Transborder Governance in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our central concern in this chapter is to understand national integration in order to reflect on its implications for democratic participation in the continent’s governance. While no multi-state region can any longer be understood outside its global context, North America is unique in this regard: as the United States of America’s home base, the northern continent of the Western Hemisphere is the platform from which the world’s only superpower engages with the rest of the planet. Consequently, any attempt to analyze North America’s governance has to be placed within the broader context of globalization and its effects on government autonomy (see Cohen 2001). Additionally, given North America’s second most striking characteristic as a region — its combination of a heavy set of economic rules in the form of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and a flimsy set of mechanisms with which to manage it — the analysis of its transborder workings has to reach far beyond any formal institutions to encompass nongovernmental actors in civil society and the marketplace. Before we proceed to analyze the region’s transborder political economy, we need first to specify how we conceptualize both globalization and 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".