Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since Jean Bodin, has been taken as the defining feature of the State. Nonetheless, there always has been dissenting voices challenging the general usefulness of that concept for understanding any political entity to which one might be tempted to apply it. Sovereignty has also been under attack on various normative grounds. This paper does not aim at making a general argument against the concept of sovereignty but rather attempts to demonstrate that, whatever its usefulness to understand other political entity, the concept of sovereignty is unfit to enter any explanation of the federation. In particular, this paper examines three types of strategies developed in the hope of being able to reconcile the concept of sovereignty and the political and legal phenomenon that we call federalism. The first two types attempt such reconciliation through radical changes in the meaning of one or the other of the terms while the third type of attempts hope to solve the riddle by introducing a third term that would mediate between the unity entailed by the concept of sovereignty and the multiplicity that defines federalism. This paper shows why all such attempts are doomed to fail. Ultimately, this means that we either have to no longer think of federal entities as States – and option that I reject – or that we have to reconsider what makes a State a State.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".