Minerva’s Rule: Canadian, European, and Japanese Leadership in Global Institution-Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite concerns about the apparent US rejection of multilateralism, the past decade has been remarkably fruitful in terms of developing international institutions. Several key developments suggest that a coalition of “Minervian powers ” (advanced industrial democracies with significant economic and military clout, yet also a strong commitment to multilateralism and norm construction) can substitute and has replaced US leadership in global institution-building. In July 2001, international relations took an unusual turn. The US, the lone global superpower and indispensable leader in international institution-building since 1944,1 had announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. With this announcement, it was expected that the Kyoto Protocol would die and that new negotiations would usher in a new US-friendly set of institutions. Yet, by the end of July, all other economically advanced countries (the so-called Annex I countries) except for Australia, had decided to ignore the US withdrawal and to press ahead. The European Union (EU) took the first step at its Gothenburg Summit in June, taking the decision to act as a climate hegemon and to lobby other countries in the process.2 Despite its tight economic integration with the US, Canada followed the European lead. Japan hesitated, torn between its close alliance with the US and clear economic interests on the one hand, and EU
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".