Bundesstaaten unter Reformdruck: Kann Deutschland von Kanada lernen?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infolge von Globalisierung, Europäisierung und Wiedervereinigung haben sich die normativen und gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen des deutschen Bundesstaats nachhaltig verändert; ohnehin vorhandene Funktionsprobleme des verflochtenen Institutionensystems wurden dadurch verschärft. Mit Blick auf die unausweichliche Strukturreform des bundesdeutschen Föderalismus führt der Vergleich mit Kanada zu interessanten Befunden. Dies gilt sowohl für Reformoptionen, wie eine „indirekte Entflechtung“ von Gesetzgebungskompetenzen oder eine Lockerung des Steuerverbunds, als auch für die allgemeinere Einsicht, dass sich föderalstaatliche Kooperation und Integration auch bei weitreichender Dezentralisierung und unter Wettbewerbsbedingungen herstellen lassen. Abstract The processes of globalisation, Europeanisation and re-unification have significantly changed the normative and social dimensions of German federalism, aggravating the already existing functional problems caused by a heavily interlocked institutional system. A structural reform of the federal state seems, therefore, inevitable. Comparing the German with the Canadian experience highlights a number of interesting reform options, especially concerning the “indirect disentanglement” of competencies and the flexibilisation of the tax union between Bund and Länder. The analysis concludes that federal co-operation and integration are also to be achieved within highly decentralised and competitive contexts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".