Opening New Perspectives on Federalism (French and English versions)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the past decade has evidenced a resurgence of interest in the practice and study of federalism, it is has become obvious that the multiplicity of its modern forms complicates our understanding. In fact, while they share a number of fundamental characteristics, federal structures are elaborated in particular socio-political contexts and evolve in unique ways. In this context, the study of the varied expressions of the 'federal phenomenon' appears more promising than the traditional understanding of federalism as a mode of state organization. With the re-emergence of identities heretofore 'contained' and an increasingly invasive transnational legal order, federalism is being put to a difficult test. Is it still appropriate to see state and federalism as inseparable‘ Are federal dynamics not also evidenced within structures that do not display, stricto sensu, the characteristics of a state‘ This very question suggests the necessity of rethinking the federal phenomenon in a theoretical framework larger than that of an essentially institutional reflection upon the organization of states. Federalism certainly remains an important mode of state organization, but it may also be envisioned from the perspective of the legal culture that it underlies, the minimal level of civility that it presupposes, or the aspirations that it promotes, whether or not they are formalized. These are questions the study of which leads to pluralizing a theoretical model which has served, up to now, as the principal framework for most inquiries in this area. This substantive paper introduces a collection of essays which looks at federalism and its study in terms of governance, identity and methodology. Drawing on multidisciplinary sources, it puts juridical thinking in a dialogical relationship with political, economic and philosophical thought. The result is a laying bare of received ideas of federalism which opens up new perspectives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".