Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.This article examines the federal Conservative party's notion of “open federalism” from a political economy perspective. In doing so, it argues that open federalism will appeal to business interests and not to unions and social activists, because it is consistent with the neoliberal approach to federalism which seeks to lock in free market-oriented policies. To demonstrate this point, the article draws on the work of neoliberal intellectuals—including Nobel laureates Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman and James Buchanan—on “market-preserving federalism” and compares it with the key principles of open federalism and those advocated by business lobby groups and think tanks. Résumé.Cet article examine la notion de “ fédéralisme ouvert ” adoptée par le Parti conservateur fédéral dans une perspective d'économie politique. Il avance que le fédéralisme ouvert plaira au milieu des affaires et déplaira aux syndicats et aux militants sociaux parce qu'il concorde avec la conception néolibérale du fédéralisme qui vise à instituer des politiques compatibles avec l'économie de marché. La démonstration s'appuie sur les travaux de penseurs néolibéraux—notamment les lauréats du prix Nobel, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman et James Buchanan—sur le concept d'un fédéralisme qui préserve le marché (market-preserving federalism) et compare ce concept aux principes de base du fédéralisme ouvert et à ceux que prônent les groupes de pression et les analystes du milieu des affaires.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".