What Explains the Paradox of Tobacco Control Policy under Federalism in the U.S. and Canada? Comparative Federalism Theory versus Multi-level Governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is generally recognized as having more decentralized federalism than the United States. Even though the content of tobacco control policy in the two countries has been similar, the United States has had a more decentralized process, with policy usually led by the state level, while Canada has had a centralized process, with most initiatives coming from the federal government. This article examines this anomaly, utilizing two different approaches to intergovernmental relations, Kelemen's "comparative federalism" and Hooghe and Marks' "multi-level governance" (MLG). Overall, MLG is a better explanation for tobacco control policy in both countries, especially in the U.S. Discretionary implementation from the central level in parliamentary systems, unitary or federal, may be more broadly applicable than the legalistic implementation of separation-of-powers systems. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it