Devolution and Intergovernmental Relations: The Emergence of Intergovernmental Affairs Agencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".