Aetolians, Europeans and Canadians: A Comparative analysis of federations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present essay we begin with a short presentation of the Aetolian proto-federation and compare its structure and institutions with two modern ones, that of Canada and that of the European Union. We will then make an evaluation of the three federations according to two sets of criteria. a) Democratisation, which contains four sub-criteria: “isonomia” (equality in front of the law) “isokratia” (political equality), “isegoria” (equality to propose initiatives) and “isopoliteia” (single citizenship, the transfer of the political rights of a citizen of a state, when he moves to another within the federation) b) Cohesion, which comprises the following four sub-criteria : i) monetary union, ii) fiscal union and federal budget iii) federal regulation and the basic economic freedoms, of goods and services, capital and labour and iv) common external and defence policy. The results of the evaluation show that according to the criterion of democratisation, the Aetolian ranks first and the EU last, while according to cohesion, the Aetolian ranks first and the EU last, while according to cohesion, the Aetolian and Canadian rank as about equal while the EU again lags behind.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".