Legislators and Regional Organizations: The Issue of Legitimacy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent scholarship has argued that there has been an opening up of international and regional organizations toward transnational actors since the end of the Cold War, as a result of increased democratization, which is generally considered as a positive contribution to the legitimacy of these organizations. Yet it remains unclear how generalized the opening up has been in terms of regions and category of actors. The role of legislators, particularly outside the European Union, remains understudied even though their presence in regional organizations has increased over the past three decades. This article seeks to fill this void partially by way of a comparative analysis of the role of legislators using the Organization of American States and the Southern Common Market as case studies. The first part of the article offers an overview of the literature and presents our research design. We then proceed with a comparative analysis of the role of legislators at the input, throughput, and output stages of the legitimation process. We conclude with a general assessment of the contribution of legislators as dispensers of legitimacy for regional organizations in the Americas.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it