Concetualizar os comuns: Uma revisão seletiva e transdisciplinar.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conceptualisation of the commons faces the challenge of various meanings of "commons".If the meanings vary according to the political theory, they do not, however, vary in the importance they give to regulation, or lack of it, and to free access, or its limitation.In short, thinking about the commons implies, by relation or opposition, thinking about property.By creating a branch of theoretical and empirical research within classical economics, dedicated to Common Pool Resources (CPR), Elinor Ostrom redefined the economic concept of the commons and influenced other schools of thought.Known as the theory of "the tragedy of the commons", the understanding of the commons prior to Ostrom's work was that of freely accessible, unregulated and invariably unsustainable resources (Hardin, 1968).Contrary to what this author suggests, Ostrom proves that private property is not a necessary condition for the efficient and sustainable governance of resources and introduces CPRs as proof of the success of selfgovernance.In theory, the author is not opposed to the effectiveness of private or state involvement, depending on the case, but expressly defends the polycentric governance of resources.Her understanding of commons, i.e.CPRs, is descriptive.Foster and Iaione (2016, 2022) also adopt the normative definition of the commons for cases in which the community in question would benefit from self-governance that has not yet been implemented.In the context of urban commons, and with a view to the normative defence of the commons, the authors argue that an articulation based on property theory is necessary.Conversely, in Dardot and Laval's critical theory of capitalism, the commons as a political principle should transform the role of the institution of property, with the focus not being on the theory of property, but rather on the introduction of a (new) dominant institution: the right of use.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".