Cross-Scale Institutional Linkages: Perspectives from the Bottom Up
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
"How do national and international-level institutions affect the capabilities of local users to govern and manage local resources? The question reflects the practical reality that local commons institutions are embedded in and affected by regional, national and global influences. There seem to be two broad categories of influences. First, decisions and developments in the outside world affect the local use of resources. Second, national governments and other national-level organizations are making commitments to manage international and global commons that obligate them to influence the actions of local resource users. This paper is mainly about the first category of influences, (1) understanding how higher-level institutions affect local institutions, and (2) identifying promising institutional forms for cross-scale linkages. \n \n "The commons literature is full of examples of destructive state intervention, such as excessive centralization, as found in many parts of Africa, which has stifled existing local institutions and prevented self-organization. However, the literature also contains many examples in which the state has created enabling legislation or has otherwise facilitated the development of local-level institutions. A literature has developed also on forms of institutions with potential for cross-scale linkages. One of these forms is co-management, linking local-level institutions with the government level. A second is multistakeholder bodies. A third is institutions oriented for development, empowerment and co-management (examples: CANARI in St. Lucia, West Indies; number of NGOs in Bangladesh). A fourth is the class of institutions for linking local users with regional agencies (example: epistemic communities leading to the Mediterranean Action Plan). A fifth concerns research and management approaches that enable cross-scale linkages (examples: adaptive management and participatory rural appraisal). Finally, a sixth is the emerging class of institutions for 'citizen science' (examples: watershed associations in Minnesota, USA; Peoples Biodiversity Registers, India)."
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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