MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114320929 · doi:10.1177/095207670301800302

Devolution and Intergovernmental Relations: The Emergence of Intergovernmental Affairs Agencies

2003· article· en· W2114320929 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Policy and Administration · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelshDevolution (biology)Public administrationCivil servantsGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceCentral governmentLocal governmentSociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systems of intergovernmental relations are an intrinsic feature of multi-tiered systems of government. In executive-dominated, Westminster-style parliamentary federations, these relations tend to be co-ordinated by specialist agencies located near the centre of government. Such agencies, though small, have been established in the UK government as well as in the Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations. To date, pre-devolution norms of friendly and informal relations among civil servants, and the continued primacy of decentralised, inter-departmental relations, have facilitated mostly cordial intergovernmental interaction. To the degree that future devolved administrations seek more persistently to pursue a coherent set of policy priorities in their relations with central government, they may choose to further centralise co-ordination of IGR. While such a move may well be warranted from a policy perspective, it may well also engender an institutional dynamic inimical to continued amicable relations between governments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.273 · 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