When Commons and Global Public Goods Go Political
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"In this paper, we consider how these analytical tools have also been used as normative frameworks. In particular, we attempt to lay bare several elements of the models of governance propagated by the commons and global public goods discourses. While we believe that tackling this issue from these perspectives can give a unique insight into the subject matter, the elements we focus on must not be seen as an exhaustive list. First, we assess how the two concepts influence prescriptive governance models. We argue that as public goods generally imply underprovision, and commons overexploitation, this will inevitably reflect upon the inherent models of governance. Next, we compare the two discourses on the basis of four features of governance, namely: the role of the state, spatial scale, directionality, and power. By looking closely at these four elements, we show some of the normative implications of the commons and global public goods discourses for global governance."
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".