Exploring the paradox of autonomy: federalism and secession in North America
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
Abstract Many social scientists have recommended autonomy as a cure-all for territorially-based intrastate conflict. Lately, however, social scientists have begun to explore the possibility that autonomy may actually contribute to, rather than ameliorate, intrastate conflict by creating new opportunities for conflict and providing state-like institutions through which regional groups in conflict are able to pursue secession. This article fills a gap in the recent literature by specifying the dynamic interaction between autonomy and secessionism. Federalism – a common form of autonomy – provides groups in conflict with state-like institutions that provide crucial short-cuts on the path to secession, not the least of which is that these state-like institutions will hold over into independence. This article explores the dynamic of federalism and secession through an analysis of the secession movements that have developed in the United States and Canada. The article demonstrates that autonomy may actually contribute to, rather than resolve, secessionism and secessionist conflict.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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