Challenges and Opportunities for Transnational Advocacy
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 Transnational advocacy scholarship has illustrated the power of activist networks in overturning Cold War logics; facilitating disarmament and weapons control; tackling climate change; and promoting human rights. Since the 1990s, scholars have demonstrated that non-state actors can shape international outcomes, including through boycotts, persuasion, and information politics. Given the rich research agenda that these scholars set out, what have we learned in the last 20 years? And how can transnational advocacy scholarship help us understand larger trends in international relations? This forum brings together leading scholars of transnational advocacy to unpack the key debates in three areas: 1) external challenges, especially shrinking civic space worldwide; 2) internal challenges to transnational advocacy networks; and 3) the challenges and opportunities afforded by implementing international norms and international law at the domestic level. The forum brings together nine authors who have studied advocacy in Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, Bolivia, Guatemala, United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and a host of other countries across a wide range of issue areas. These scholars use a range of methods from qualitative to quantitative studies of advocacy. Collectively we illustrate how transnational advocacy matters for IR and chart a future research agenda.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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