Norms, Institutions and Governance in an Era of Uncertainty: Connecting the Disparate Scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thematic issue sprung from a desire to encourage more dialogue across subfields in the study of politics and governance on how we understand the emerging practices of global governance. Shifts in global power, the emergence of new organizations and regimes and the ever-increasing complexity of interstate cooperation have all contributed to increased interest in “governance” and the role supranational organizations play in managing globalization, regionalization and regional integration. They have also contributed to increased theoretical diversity in how “governance” should be studied. While international politics scholars, drawing on constructivist literature, have placed considerable emphasis on the development and diffusion of norms; others have drawn on the insights of comparative politics, public policy and political economy to study similar issues. While the legacy of older disciplinary boundaries continues to isolate new theoretical developments, it is clearly the case that there is a high degree of complementarity in the study of governance, particularly in the emphasis on “norms” or “ideas” and their level of institutionalization.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".