Subnational diplomacy in the Great Lakes region: toward explaining variation between water quality and quantity regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
/RésumésSubnational diplomacy is increasingly important in foreign policy and Canada-United States relations. The Great Lakes region represents an excellent laboratory for studying the role of subnational governments in foreign policy. This article focuses on water policy in the Great Lakes region, and the central research question of why subnational diplomacy varies across water quality and water quantity policy regimes. Using a comparative case approach, the paper investigates the degree to which the character of the policy challenge itself, constitutional and institutional arrangements, and the nature of federalism and intergovernmental relations in the two countries explain differing levels of subnational diplomacy. One case illustrates how institutionalized relationships between subnational units that share interests in a transboundary resource cooperate to engage in subnational diplomacy; the other illustrates more traditional involvement of subnational governments in foreign policy, highlighting that these factors hold significant promise in explaining variation in subnational diplomacy and support existing theory in the paradiplomacy literature.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".