The structures of intergovernmental relations
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
The article looks, first, at what shapes the structure of intergovernmental relations (IGR), and, second, at the structures themselves. With respect to the factors that shape IGR, the paper identifies six: demographic and geographical; social and cultural; historical; constitutional and institutional; political; and circumstantial. With respect to the structures themselves, the paper notes that the degree of institutionalisation, the extent to which IGR is decision‐making in character, and the degree of transparency all help to define the IGR system. The paper then goes on to categorise IGR into four dimensions: intra‐jurisdictional IGR, in which the defining feature is the character of the relations between and among the central and regional governments; IGR and the judiciary, in which the appeal to the courts becomes the extension of IGR into a different arena; and international and other forms of IGR, involving quasi‐governmental international bodies, multitiered political structures transcending the parameters of states, and forms of indigenous self‐government. The article closes by arguing that democratising IGR is one of the central challenges confronting governance at the beginning of the new century.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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