Bibliographic record
Abstract
This important new book on comparative federalism considers itself as a product of a 'boom' of federal studies. New, possibly emerging cases of federal agreements (Iraq, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Bosnia), the federal reforms of the EU, but also in nation-states like Australia and Germany, in pluricultural Switzerland and plurinational Canada, and the emergence of federally constituted new powers like India and Brazil may have motivated a higher demand for studies in this field. Both editors are young, but already highly renowned experts in federal studies. In order to justify the claim to represent 'new directions,' the list of the authors of the book brings together established full professors like Braun, Singh and Sturm with younger lecturers like Swenden himself, associate professors like Anderson, Colino, Detterbeck and Saxena, research fellows like Gordin, Hepburn and Martinez Herrera, and also some PhD students like Biela, de Miguel and Hennl. The general objective is to provide an analytic framework which transcends the subfields of federalism studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".