Policy Coordination in Federal Systems: Comparing Intergovernmental Processes and Outcomes in Canada and the United States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federations exist to divide power and to promote diversity. Nonetheless, in federations interdependence requires degrees of policy coordination across governments. We examine two means of coordinating policies in the U.S. and Canadian federations: administrative and jurisdictional federalism. The former, with its centralized coordinative mechanisms, is thought to produce more uniform national policy outcomes; the latter, operating in the context of non-hierarchical relationships, greater policy variation. An analysis of cases in three policy areas in both countries indicates that despite contrasting coordinative practices, outcomes in actual policies implemented in the two federations are relatively similar. Hierarchical administrative federalism in the United States does not always produce the degree of coordination one might anticipate while a decentralized non-hierarchical system in Canada can achieve surprising degrees of coordination.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it