The emergence and unfolding of the democratic co-production of common goods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines the co-production of common goods, focussing on its processual and democratic dimensions. It conceptualizes democratic co-production as governance mode involving a reconfiguration of power distribution between actors from multiple organizations, potentially resulting in a polycentric arrangement. Through an iterative dialogue between theory and documented case studies—the Great Bear Rainforest (Canada) and water governance in Terrassa (Catalonia, Spain)—the chapter develops a conceptual framework tracing trajectories toward polycentric governance. It highlights the roles of collective action, conflict, negotiation, and rule-setting in enabling collaborative arrangements. The analysis identifies key institutional features—accessibility, accountability, and professional facilitation—as critical for realising the democratic potential of co-production. While co-production is frequently promoted for its effectiveness and adaptability, and its democratic potential often taken for granted, we argue that this potential depends on how co-production processes unfold and the extent to which they become embedded within broader institutional and social contexts.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".