MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The evolution of federalism studies in Canada: From centre to periphery

2009· article· en· W2057176440 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Fafard, François Rocher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismPolitical scienceFederal stateState (computer science)HumanitiesPublic administrationLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Over the past decade, there have been a number of studies that seek to evaluate the state of federalism studies in Canada. The general conclusion seems to be that, while federalism continues to be an important part of the scholarly literature, there is a decline in the study of the traditional areas of federalism, a small number of federalism studies come from scholars in Quebec, and a relatively small number of studies are by female scholars. However, these analyses are based on a single, somewhat limited source of data, the reflections of a single scholar, or a review of a small number of Canadian scholarly journals. In this article, the authors combine a large quantitative assessment of relevant publications dealing with Canadian federalism with a brief qualitative assessment of the state of the federal studies from researchers active in the field. Their research supports some of the earlier conclusions but also suggests that, in recent years, federalism is, very often, a contextual or explanatory factor not the principal object of study. Moreover, there are potentially two Canadian scholarly traditions on federalism, one written in French and the other in English, with far too little engagement between them. Sommaire: Au cours de la dernière décennie, un certain nombre d'études ont tenté d'évaluer l'état de la recherche sur le fédéralisme au Canada. La conclusion générale semble être que, même si le fédéralisme garde un place importante dans les publications savantes au Canada, on note une baisse dans la recherche portant sur les domaines traditionnels du fédéralisme, une faible proportion d'études sur le sujet étant réalisées par des universitaires au Québec, et un nombre relativement faible d'études étant entreprises par des femmes universitaires. Cependant, ces analyses reposent sur une seule source de données, quelque peu limitée, les réflexions d'un seul universitaire, ou sur un examen d'un petit nombre de revues savantes canadiennes. Dans le présent article, les auteurs combinent une importante évaluation quantitative de publications pertinentes portant sur le fédéralisme canadien avec une brève évaluation qualitative de la nature des études sur le fédéralisme entreprises par des chercheurs actifs dans le domaine. Leur recherche appuie certaines des conclusions antérieures mais laisse également entendre que, ces dernières années, le fédéralisme est très souvent un facteur contextuel ou explicatif plutôt que le principal sujet mis à l'étude. De plus, il pourrait fort y avoir deux traditions canadiennes de recherche sur le fédéralisme, une écrite en français et l'autre en anglais, et trop peu de relation entre elles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207