MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765402058 · doi:10.1177/0032321717726919

Communicating Cosmopolitanism and Motivating Global Citizenship

2017· article· en· W2765402058 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsCosmopolitanismCulpabilitySociologyAction (physics)Global citizenshipAction researchArgument (complex analysis)Collective actionSocial psychologyEnvironmental ethicsSocial sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceLawCriminologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses strategies of communication to motivate ordinary individuals to act in accord with cosmopolitan ethics. The central argument of the article is that research on cosmopolitan motivation needs to engage much more actively with research in psychology and communications, which provide significant insights on the effectiveness of strategies that moral philosophers have proposed to motivate cosmopolitan action. The article critically analyses ‘thick cosmopolitan’ motivation strategies, which highlight the collective culpability of affluent individuals in the global North for the poverty in the global South as a means to motivate cosmopolitan action. Drawing on research in psychology, the article argues that the emphasis on culpability can have adverse impacts at odds with cosmopolitan ethics. The article then proposes alternative communication strategies for cosmopolitan motivation, drawing again on research in psychology and communications.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.225
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.279 · 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