Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper re-examines the issue of the establishment of a common political institution in the Commonwealth Caribbean. It recognizes that while a unitary form of governance may be necessary due to converging global forces, the implementation of this type of institutional arrangement will be constrained by factors such as the economic, social and political environments of the different countries. Yet, the article argues, the European Union and the Parliament that was subsequently established in 1979 suffered these limitations as well. In the case of these countries, however, it could be argued that the similarities were more powerful than the differences. Analysts, for example, have argued that the countries that make up the European Parliament are not separated by sea as occurs in the case of the islands in the Caribbean. Thus, the proximity of these countries allows for closer ties. However, a major argument that has been advanced to explain why the Caribbean will have difficulty in establishing a common Parliament has to do with leadership. Because of their history as slave and indentured societies, it has been suggested that the leaders in the Caribbean were reluctant to transfer authority and cede their sovereign status. While these factors are no doubt valid, this paper argues that perhaps the major problem in the Caribbean may be the absence of a well- thought out federal political arrangement and the inability of the various countries to articulate clearly defined procedures and practices.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".