MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119726544 · doi:10.1080/13597560902753644

The Paradox of Federalism: Some Practical Reflections

2009· article· en· W2119726544 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional & Federal Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismPoliticsDemocracyEconomic JusticePolitical sciencePolitical economyLaw and economicsCooperative federalismFiscal federalismPublic administrationSet (abstract data type)Economic systemSociologyEconomicsLawDecentralization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the promise and paradox of federalism in Iraq, Sri Lanka and Quebec and Canada. The author has doubts as to whether the paradox can be effectively resolved with institutional fine-tuning. Rather, for him, questions of political justice prevail when exploring whether federalism leads to or calms secessionism. The challenge then is not institutional but pre-institutional—things that must be agreed upon before normal politics can operate. While it is comparatively easy to adjust institutions, it is more difficult to adjust—let alone bring about—these pre-institutional features. Despite the risks inherent in the institutional set-up of federalism, there might be little else on the table to keep divided societies together in a liberal democratic system that respects the basic demands of justice.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.038
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional & Federal StudiesSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207