Diversity and Unity in Federal Countries, edited by Luis Moreno and Cesar Colino.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If federal arrangements are to adequately serve governing, they should promote both inclusion and differences. The degree to which federalism serves these aims by different institutional responses and strategies for achieving this tall order are analyzed for twelve countries in this volume. It is the seventh in a series of practical volumes on, “A Global Dialogue on Federalism,” that links academics and public officials. The Moreno and Colino volume examines how diversities are distributed, activated, politicized, and dealt with, and under what conditions different types of federal arrangements serve to accommodate social and political differences, manage conflicts, and stabilize legitimate orders. Following a common template, Diversity and Unity compares constitutional principles, socioeconomic differences, cultural-identity diversities, political differences, institutional arrangements, and policies for managing diversity. Each country faces somewhat different challenges. Generally speaking, Australia has no strongly pronounced ethno-cultural cleavages that are defined territorially. In contrast, Belgium experiences three main cleavages: socioeconomic, philosophical-ideological, and linguistic. Although Brazil does experience some territorial differences, particularly north–south, the federal challenges are more related to problems of access to economic resources, public policies, and citizenship. Canada not only has language but also regional differences, and issues of territorial minorities. Ethiopia is home to more than eighty “nations, nationalities and peoples.” In Germany, an otherwise homogenous country, the challenges of labor migration from other countries and unifying the former eastern Länder nevertheless present challenges. India, of course, faces multiple identities related to geography, language, religion, socioeconomic status, some of which threaten its unity as a nation state. The same concerns exist for Nigeria. However, only territorially has it recognized diversity. Finally, Spain’s internal diversity is highly territorial, manifested in various forms of historical interpretations and identity politics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".