Federal Spending Power in Three Federations: Australia, Canada and the United States
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
This paper will consider and compare the federal spending power in three ‘mature’ federations, Australia, Canada and the United States. One of the issues to be considered will be whether the federal spending power, as interpreted by the relevant courts, is sufficiently broad to deal with the obligations of a central government in current circumstances. In doing so, recurring important issues in fiscal federalism, including the allocation of responsibilities within federal systems and vertical fiscal imbalance, will be noted. The constitutional context in which this issue arises, including the fact that the constitution of each of the countries studied was conceived in times very different from those we face today, and the fact that the role and size of government has similarly radically changed since those times, is important. It is argued that a broad interpretation of the federal government's spending power is needed to provide the necessary constitutional flexibility that would otherwise be forbidden by the formal rigidity of the constitutions and the difficulty in making amendments, particularly in Australia and Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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