Non-centralized Coordination during a Transboundary Crisis
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
Abstract The coronavirus pandemic of 2020 presented the world with a major issue requiring collective action to appropriately address. Contrasting non-centralization with administrative coordination and centralization as approaches to collective action in federal systems, this chapter examines the decision-making and coordination of freedom of movement policies during the first nine months of the pandemic to understand what coordination arrangements arose in four different federal systems (Australia, Canada, the European Union [EU], and the United States). The comparison highlights the continued importance of regional governments to policymaking in federal systems, the value of the European Commission as both a coordinator and negotiator for policymaking, and the potential that Australia has as a comparator for the EU. It concludes that the development of New Intergovernmentalism has not simply undermined the role of supranational institutions in the EU, but rather the intergovernmental institutions working with the supranational ones have created new dynamics that may be disempowering in one way and empowering in another way for supranational institutions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 it