Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the end of the Second World War, there were only four functioning federations in the world – the United States, Switzerland, Canada and Australia. Today, there are some twenty-five to thirty federations, and federalism is being actively discussed in perhaps another half dozen countries. In addition, the European Union has emerged as one of the most ambitious and remarkable political innovations of the last half century – one with increasingly federal features and an active debate around federalism. This proliferation of federations has been driven by a variety of factors. Foremost must be democratization. Germany and Austria returned to federalism with their return to democracy. Mexico, Brazil and Argentina became truly functioning federations with the end of one party or military rule. The death of Franco in Spain and the end of Apartheid in South Africa both uncorked democratic forces that resulted in those countries adopting what are effectively federal structures. A second factor was the end of the British Empire – India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Nigeria all emerged with federal structures on achieving independence. We have also seen the rise of identity politics and regional or communitarian stresses which have pushed Belgium into federalism and Italy well along the road in that direction, and tested a long-established federation such as Canada. Of course, the story of federalism, like that of democracy more generally, includes failures and setbacks. A number of post-colonial federations that had been cobbled together by departing Imperial powers did not hold together.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.474 | 0.412 |
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".