Resourcing for Inclusion of Marginalized Actors in Transnational Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of many communities around the world work daily to become active participants in changing or building transnational regulations, despite limited access to the resources commonly required for engagement in these processes. The research question at the center of this study is: how marginalized actors work to get included in transnational governance? This issue was examined in the context of the construction of a new regulation in the United Nations, the legally-binding Nagoya Protocol designed to regulate access and benefit-sharing (ABS) initiatives in the context of biodiversity-based innovation. This study focuses on indigenous peoples - non-state actors who historically have been excluded from policy-making processes and are in a disadvantaged position for contributing to the shaping of this new institution. This research project adopts a qualitative, inductive and longitudinal research strategy in a multi-event ethnography. The main finding highlights the emergence of the mechanism “resourcing”, composed of three different types of resourcing: organizational, discursive and material. Building on this finding, the paper elaborates a grounded model for inclusion in transnational regulation creation that illustrates the continuous interplay among “negotiation spaces”, “positions” and “resourcing”. This paper contributes to the literature by illuminating the practices behind inclusion of marginalized actors involved in transnational 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".