MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167940972 · doi:10.1093/publius/pjq008

Reflections on Comparing Federalisms: Canada and the United States

2010· article· en· W2167940972 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublius The Journal of Federalism · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismSimilarity (geometry)Value (mathematics)Variation (astronomy)PerceptionPolitical sciencePositive economicsVariable (mathematics)SociologyEpistemologyLawEconomicsComputer sciencePoliticsStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article illustrates the challenges involved in preparing a systematic comparison of two federal countries. It examines questions as to what explains similarities and differences in federal systems. It rejects any single-variable approach to explaining federalism but gives primacy to ideas and to institutions. While there are fundamental differences in founding ideas and historical legacies, there are major similarities between these two federations. We conclude this analysis by underlining the value of comparison. Comparison helps clarify explanations for both variation and similarity, corrects misconceived perceptions of differences, and suggests areas of learning from one another.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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