External Relations of the Regions: the Main Problems of Paradiplomacy Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:The article discusses the theoretical basis of research in the feld of paradiplomacy or external relations of intrastate administrative-territorial entities. Paradiplomacy is an umbrella concept within several theoretical approaches that are significantly close in content. The author analyzes the main problems in the theory of diplomacy related to the lack of heuristic potential and the lack of a formed conceptual grid. Materials and methods:from a theoretical and methodological point of view, the author uses the hermeneutic approach, which allows to combine descriptive techniques and analysis of the subjective aspects of the given phenomenon. In addition, the author relies on a comparative historical method and a normative political analysis, which makes it possible to ft the facts of political reality into the framework of political theory. The paradiplomatic practice of Russia, Brazil, Canada, USA, Tanzania, and the Republic of South Africa acted as the material for the study. Research results:the author has identifed three main problems of the theory of paradiplomacy, which delay its further development. The theory of paradiplomacy does not have clear answers for questions of the spatial transformation of administrative-territorial units and the relationship of these transformation processes with paradiplomatic activity. The theory of paradiplomacy is unable to explain the phenomena of multilateral interregional relations and the unevenness of paradiplomatic activity. Discussions and conclusions:the author states that the existing theoretical approaches to paradiplomacy are mainly descriptive in nature and do not address the problems of a methodological, epistemological and normative nature, which is an undoubted drawback.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".