Multi-level governance frameworks in British Columbia and Scotland, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis aims to determine whether the concept of multi-level governance works on a practical, theoretical and normative level as a valid and unique concept in the bottom-up analysis of politics and policy. To do this, two case studies - British Columbia and Scotland - are examined to resolve what the current conception of MLG adds to our understanding of governance. The central argument of this thesis is that in order to develop the idea of 'governance' as a theoretical and practical concept, analysis of policy and politics must take into account both the level of hierarchy and the flexibility of the governance framework in order to understand the nature of governance processes in the case in question and the effect of these processes on politics as a whole. This deeper conceptualisation of governance will allow for a clearer understanding of the relationship between governance and power, the implications of governance structures on political and policy processes and the true extent that multi-level 'governance' has taken hold over a more traditional idea of multi-level 'government'.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".