MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083863924 · doi:10.1080/13597566.2014.992886

From Sub-state Nationalism to Subnational Competition States: The Development and Institutionalization of Commercial Paradiplomacy in Scotland and Quebec

2015· article· en· W2083863924 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hubert Rioux Ouimet

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional & Federal Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalismInstitutionalisationPolitical scienceCompetition (biology)Openness to experienceState (computer science)DiplomacyPublic administrationPolitical economyEconomicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the most active regions in terms of commercial paradiplomacy are home to influential nationalist movements: Scotland and Quebec are cases in point. Conversely, many rich and export-oriented regions, such as South East England in the United Kingdom or Ontario in Canada, remain less active, if at all, in this domain. Nevertheless, the influence of nationalism as a driving force behind the practice of commercial paradiplomacy by subnational entities has often been subordinated to other variables such as ‘trade openness’ (exports as part of GDP) or ‘asymmetry’ with national economic interests (export and FDI partners). This article describes the development of autonomous commercial paradiplomacy apparatuses in Quebec and Scotland by focusing on nationalism as a crucial motive, which is also partly responsible for the way such apparatuses developed, through the establishment of organizations and strategies institutionally distinct from those of the ‘rest’ of Canada and the UK.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional & Federal StudiesSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207