Cited by 13International Relations and Foreign PolicySocial Media and PoliticsPolitical Theory and Democracy

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Transnational Advocacy Networks in the Information Society: Partners or Pawns?

Cogburn, Derrick L.·2017·Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks

Abstract

This book examines the role of transnational advocacy networks in enabling effective participation for individual citizens in the deliberative processes of global governance. Contextualized around the

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/978-1-137-48361-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cogburn, D. L.
Affiliations
American University (US)
Corresponding author
Cogburn, Derrick L.
Venue
Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks
Published
2017
OpenAlex
W2576913954
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.92
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • World Bank Group
  • W.K. Kellogg Foundation
  • University of Oklahoma
  • Department of Political Science, University of Washington
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
transnational advocacy networks, global governance, citizen participation, deliberative democracy, information society, civil society, transnational activism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review