Change and Continuity in Multinational Democracies: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections on Canadian Federalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federal principles, if reduced to fundamental attributes, are concerned with the combination of self-rule and shared-rule. The actual equilibrium of self- and sharedrule, however, is a complex and contingent question, and scholars of federalism generally adopt various sets of criteria in which to discern, first, what the balance actually is, through an examination of institutional configurations, and second, what the balance ought to be, through some considerations around questions of justice and stability. For the purposes of this paper, and to simplify matters somewhat, I adopt a perspective employed by Michael Burgess, among others, which makes a conceptual distinction between federations and federalism. Briefly, we can refer to federations as the institutional expression, usually through constitutional terms, of federalism, which is an idea or norm about the goal of the political system to protect and sustain unity and diversity as an organizing principle - contributing to ensure the existence, integrity and autonomy of the constituent parties. A state can be more or less federal within static and unchanging markers of federation. We can thus speak of the extent to which federalization has taken hold in particular historical and spatial 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".