Bibliographic record
Abstract
John J. Kirton -PhD in International Studies, Professor, Director of the G8 Research Group, Co-Director of the G20 Research of the University of Toronto, M5S 1A1, 100 St. George, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; E-mail: john.kirton@utoronto.ca AbstractThe presented article is a translation of the second chapter of John Kirton’s book “Governance for a Globalized World” made with the permission of the author.The author analyses the G20 phenomena drawing on various theories of international relations: realism, liberal institutionalism, Gramscian political economy, and constructivism. It is concluded that none of these classical theories is sufficient to explain the G20 governance.Followed one after the other economic shocks, exposing new vulnerabilities in the process of globalization (e.g. financial crisis of 1997-1999, emerging in Asia and spreading around the world), contributed to the rapid establishment in 1999 of a broader, possessing large collective capabilities and closely interrelated Group of Twenty, which was designed to help the Group of Seven / Eight and other organizations to provide global governance in the field of economics and finance. The increased number and variety of systemically important countries represented in the G20 helped to increase its capacity, representativeness, effectiveness and legitimacy as a new center of collective leadership. In 2008, an even more serious financial crisis that began with the U.S. and spread to the entire world, has led to an increase in the level of cooperation within the G20 to the meetings of the leaders of the Member States. This step contributed to the emergence of new opportunities and levels of interaction.The G20 governance could be explained by a model of systemic hub governance, which adapts and extends the proven concert equality model of the G8 governance by selectively drawing on concepts from international relations theories of realism, liberal institutionalism, political economy, constructivism, complex adaptive systems, clubs, and networks. The G20 represents a special kind of club, defined by the systemic significance of its members in the world where the connectivity among them as well as the relative capability across countries is a central feature of the system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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".