Courts and Federalism: Judicial Doctrine in the United States, Australia, and Canada, by Gerald Baier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an impressive book. In a brief 162 pages of text the author presents a systematic analysis of judicial doctrines of federalism in three countries, the U.S., Australia, and Canada. If for nothing else federalism scholars should read this book for concise and insightful accounts of recent federalism jurisprudence in these countries. The writing is crisp, the discussion succinct, and the analysis of various currents and shifts over time convincing. In this regard the book is superb. However, the author also sets out another ambitious theoretical agenda. At the outset, he attacks the attitudinal model in American public law scholarship, and proposes instead to show that “doctrine matters” by anchoring his discussion in postpositivist analysis of the new institutionalism. Thus, the book promises to make a contribution both to the comparative analysis of federalism jurisprudence, as well as to the theory of judicial decision making. In short, it promises a lot.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".