Intergovernmental Relations Post-devolution: Active Labour Market Policy in Canada and the United Kingdom 1996–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Devolution of active labour market policy has been pursued by both the Canadian and UK governments during the past decade and, as a result, new intergovernmental relationships have developed. These are compared, focusing in particular on relationships between the Government of Canada and the Government of the province of Alberta, and the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. The analysis concludes that intergovernmental relations and the workability of the intergovernmental relations system in the two countries are fundamentally different. This is due to distinct features in the structure of the state (the constitution, the number of sub-state governments and the asymmetry between them, how finances are shared, and how power is divided), and in the governing structure for active labour market policy (the degree of decentralization, the power of central government to act, the involvement of actors external to government, and the operation of the intergovernmental machinery) in each country. It is also due to the continued presence in the UK, during the period of this research, of two powerful forces of intergovernmental accommodation not found in Canada—a unitary party system and unified civil service.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".