Netocracy and Global Multipolarity: Archetypal Rethinking Public Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article provides a conceptual analysis of the transformation of public administration in the context of the digital revolution and global multipolarity through the archetypal prism of netocracy – a new form of power based on control over information flows, digital platforms and algorithms. It is proven that in the 21st century, classical hierarchical models of governance are losing their effectiveness, giving way to flexible network structures and new archetypes of leadership and legitimacy. The phenomenon of algorithmic sovereignty, socio-technological resonance and digital public virtue as key mechanisms of the new governance paradigm is revealed. Particular attention is paid to the role of cognitive trust, strategic facilitation, reputational capital and moral programming in the process of public decision-making. Several political and managerial recommendations are proposed for the adaptation of state institutions to the new reality, in particular, the introduction of mechanisms of algorithmic audit, digital ethics, multi-actor co-management and mental digital sustainability. Ukraine is presented as a state with a unique window of opportunity to form a model of innovative network management that combines technological efficiency with humanistic values.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".