Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalisation represents a major challenge to governance.Indeed, for many the concept of globalisation itself is inextricably linked to the idea of ungovernability.This association is comprehensible, since the classic locus of governance is the state, and the debate on globalisation concerns mainly the allegedly declining capacity of states to regulate what happens within their territories as a result of their growing enmeshment in cross-border flows and networks.1 This chapter does not address to what extent the governance capacity of states has been curtailed by global forces: other chapters in this volume assess the extensive literature on this question.Its aim is rather to review a substantial body of research which shows that the performance of governance functions is not limited to the actions of governments exercising sovereign powers over their jurisdictions, but occurs also at supranational and transnational levels.Governance -understood as the establishment and operation of rule systems facilitating the coordination and cooperation of social actors -is conceptually distinct from government -understood as an organisation in charge of administering and enforcing those rules (Young, 1999).The literature discussed in this chapter (originating mostly from political scientists and international relations scholars) maintains that governance is not co-extensive with government, and that government should not be seen as a necessary condition of governance.More specifically, it shows that the absence of a world government does not mean that governance is impossible beyond the level of individual states.Global issues such as ozone depletion, the spread of financial crises, and the prohibition of certain kinds of weapons are managed by governance structures that do not conform to the hierarchical model of rule setting and enforcement that is typical of states.The combination of these structures can be said to form a system of global governance. What is global governance?During the 1990s, 'global governance' emerged as the key term of a political programme for international reform 2 as well as a conceptual tool in political research.3 Disparate issues have been examined through the lens of global governance, such as the role of business in environmental policy 4 the negotiation and implementation of public health policies, 5 peace-keeping, 6 gender policies, 7 weapons bans, 8 the regulation of world trade, 9 and the reform of the United Nations system.10 Lawrence S. Finkelstein (1995, 370-1) probably provided the most comprehensive description of what global governance is about: Governance should be considered to cover the overlapping categories of functions performed internationally, among them: information creation and exchange; formulation and promulgation of principles and promotion of consensual knowledge affecting the general international order, regional orders, particular issues on the international agenda, and efforts to influence the domestic rules and behavior of states; good offices, conciliation, mediation, and compulsory resolution of disputes; regime formation, tending and execution; adoption of rules, codes, and regulations; allocation of material and program resources; provision of technical assistance and development programs; relief, humanitarian, emergency, and disaster activities; and maintenance of peace and order.The complexity of this description reflects the problem of conceptualising governance with precision.The term 'governance' itself has been used in a variety of contexts.11 What is common to most uses of the term 'governance' is that it denotes a form of social steering that does not necessarily rely on hierarchy and
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 0.041 |
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".