MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2502908074 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511626494.002

A Theory of Socially Coercive State Capacity

2009· book-chapter· en· W2502908074 on OpenAlexaff
Antje Ellermann

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)EnforcementWhite (mutation)Political scienceLawLaw and economicsSociologyComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question is: what level of enforcement is the nation comfortable with? The closer you get to the ground, the grayer it gets – you can no longer think in terms of black and white. (Personal interview, senior official, INS Headquarters, Washington, D.C., August 27, 2002) This chapter presents a theoretical framework for the study of state capacity in fields of coercive social regulation. Given the pervasive neglect of this policy cluster by the public policy literature and by state-centric scholars, we need to address a basic question before setting out on the path of theory building: what is the distinct nature of coercive social regulation? How do the dynamics of this policy type differ from those driving the politics of economic regulation, and of distribution and redistribution? Once we have identified these forces, we can move on to the larger question of state capacity. Under what conditions, we shall ask, should we expect states to exercise their coercive powers of social regulation successfully? The theoretical framework developed in this chapter pursues an institutional logic of argument that distinguishes between the factors underlying state capacity at two distinct stages of the policy process. As a first step, we will specify the conditions under which legislators will translate popular demands for social regulation into corresponding statutes. Second, we will examine the conditions under which executive actors will wield the power to implement these legislative mandates. The remainder of this book will empirically test these propositions. The determinants of legislative capacity will be examined in Chapter 2, whereas the proposed conditions underlying executive state capacity will be tested in Chapters 3 and 4. Before further specifying these conditions, this chapter will begin by outlining the basic characteristics of the politics of coercive social regulation. THE POLITICS OF COERCIVE SOCIAL REGULATION The modern state, Max Weber has famously argued, can be defined as an institution claiming the monopoly of legitimate coercion within a given territory (1979).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.026
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US→French-language works237,207→