The intergovernmental dimensions of the social union: A sectoral analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper reports on the federalism being practised in the Canadian social union based on eleven case studies. The studies ask three questions. What kinds of intergovernmental regimes prevail in the social sector? What is the impact of regime type on the public interest? For individual programs, is there an alternative to the existing regime that might better serve the public interest? Intergovernmental regimes are defined by reference to two sets of variables: the extent to which there is independence or interdependence between orders of government; and the extent to which a hierarchical or non‐hierarchical relationship prevails. Four types of regimes are defined: unilateral (hierarchical, interdependent), collaborative (non‐hierarchical, interdependent), classical (non‐hierarchical, independent), and beggar‐thy‐partner (hierarchical, independent). Regarding the first question, all four regime types are found in the eleven cases and no one type dominates. More generally, the regimes vary from sector to sector, from program to program, and over time suggesting that there is no single theory of federalism guiding the management of the social union. The effect of regime type on the public interest is analysed on the basis of policy, democratic, and federalism criteria. In most cases, the intergovernmental regime is analysed as appropriate, suggesting that something is right with the social union, at least from its intergovernmental perspective. In cases where the intergovernmental regime is considered inappropriate, the analysis argues for more collaborative federalism. Sommaire: Le présent article fait un rapport sur le fédéralisme pratiqué dans l'union sociale canadienne à partir de onze études de cas. Trois questions sont posées. Quels types de régimes intergouvernementaux l'emportent dans le secteur social? Quel est l'impact du type de régime sur l'intérêt public? Pour les programmes individuels, existe‐t‐il une alternative au régime existant qui pourrait mieux servir l'intérêt public? Les régimes intergouvernementaux sont définis par référence à deux ensembles de variables: la mesure dans laquelle il existe une indépendance ou une interdépendance entre les ordres de gouvernement; et la mesure dans laquelle une relation hiérarchique ou non hiérarchique prévaut. Quatre types de régimes sont définis: unilatéral (hiérarchique, interdépendant), coopératif (non hiérarchique, interdépendant), classique (non hiérarchique, indépendant) et le chacun pour soi (hiérarchique, indépendant). En ce qui concerne la première question, on trouve les quatre types de régimes dans les onze études de cas et aucun type ne domine. Plus généralement, les régimes varient d'un secteur à l'autre, d'un programme à l'autre, et au fil des ans, laissant supposer qu'il n'existe pas une théorie unique de fédéralisme pour guider la gestion de l'union sociale. L'effet du type de régime sur l'intérêt public est analysé sur la base des critères de politique, de démocratie et de fédéralisme. Dans la plupart des cas, le régime intergouvernemental est considéré approprié, laissant entendre que l'union sociale fonctionne bien, du moins selon sa perspective intergouvernementale. Dans les cas où le régime intergouvernemental est considéré inapproprié, l'analyse plaide pour un fédéralisme plus coopératif.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".