United People: Designing A New Model of Global Governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human-driven changes on this planet have been giving rise to global warming, social instability, civil wars, and acts of terrorism. The existing system of global governance is not equipped to effectively address these enormous challenges. It is slow where one must move quickly, favors bureaucracy and politics over authentic deliberations and effective interventions, and caters to power-brokers and mega-corporations. The world therefore needs a model of global governance that serves to make and implement collectively binding decisions that acknowledge the interests of all those affected, including future generations. This governance model must coordinate the work of great (e.g. national) powers, and at the same time enable billions of people to bring their intelligence and creativity to bear on these challenges. In many ways, the quest for a new system of global governance is a grand societal challenge in itself. In this paper, we draw on idealized design to develop an ideal model of global governance and explore the collective search and experimentation efforts it implies. This so-called United People (UP) model involves a circular hierarchy in which power and communication flow in ways that help the global community to effectively address transnational challenges and problems. It involves several, relatively small, governance bodies—rather than a large parliamentary assembly that tends to cripple responsive decision-making. The UP model also serves to effectively uncover and address power abuse, simplify the financial household of global governance, and support systemic forms of collaboration with NGOs and other organizations.
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 | 0.032 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".