Основание федеративного государства в США (историко-государствоведческий очерк)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. There is a widespread opinion that the USA was the first federative state. But it’s necessary to explain the reasons and consequences of this project. Why it was so unique? Why it differed even from another federative states in Anglo-American World such as Canada or Australia? Matherials and methods. The authors applied economic social data, opinions of the contemporaries to demonstrate the desirability of a federal union for the former American colonies. The Federalist papers created by A. Hamilton, J. Jay and J. Madison contain arguments for the formation of the American federative state. Results. The authors claim that a whole set of different factors has furthered the formation of a classical model of federalism. In a few years the Confederation of independent states has transformed into the Federation owing to adaption of the Constitution in 1787. Conclusions. The American federalism was of an innovative nature as well as the whole American civilization, unrepeated in another parts of the world. In densely populated and feudally burdened Europe there were not any conditions for a federative project in the late 18 th century. In other pioneer countries (such as Canada or Australia) no anti-colonial or freedom movement helped to inspire federative states. On the contrary, Canadian or Australian federalisms were initiated not from the grass roots but mainly from above.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".