Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract How does governing work today? How does society (mis)handle pressing challenges such as armed violence, cultural difference, ecological degradation, economic restructuring, geopolitical shifts, global pandemics, migration flows, and technological change in ways that are democratic, effective, fair, peaceful, and sustainable? This book addresses this key question around the theme of ‘polycentrism’: i.e. the idea that contemporary governing is dispersed, fluctuating, messy, elusive, and headless. Chapters develop this notion of polycentrism from a broad spectrum of academic disciplines and theoretical approaches. Readers thereby obtain a full coverage of exciting new thinking about how today’s world is (mis)ruled. The book distinguishes four paradigms of knowledge about polycentric governing—organizational, legal, relational, structural—and pursues conversations across the divides that normally keep these approaches in separate research communities. These exceptional inter-paradigm exchanges focus especially on issues of techniques (how governing is done), power (what forces drive governing), and legitimacy (whether governing is rightful). Comparisons between the multiple perspectives on polycentric governing highlight, and help to clarify, the distinctive emphases, potentials, and limitations of each approach. In addition, combinations across the diverse theories generate promising novel avenues of thought about polycentrism. Through their engagement with the book, readers can develop their own understandings of governing today and thereby become more empowered political subjects.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".