Improving international policy-making in the absence of treaty regimes: the international forestry, migration and water policy cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinguishing between international regime features and national implementation problems affecting policy effectiveness in many areas of international policy-making is an area of increasing concern to practitioners and academics alike. While many observers have traced problems with existing global governance architectures to deal with contemporary problems to the lack of appropriate treaties at the international level, recent work on regime fragmentation and the interplay between regimes suggests that a lack of a central and integrated international regime may be overcome through improved multi-level governance efforts. Much can be learned in this area from sectoral experiences in areas such as water and forestry as well as non-resource areas such as migration where such strong regimes have failed to develop.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".