Les fédérations belge et canadienne: essai de comparaison synthétique et systématique (Belgian and Canadian Federations: A Synthetic and Systematic Comparison)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Ce court article est tire d’un numero special sur l’impact du federalisme sur les politiques environnementales – et vice versa – en Belgique et au Canada. Afin de mieux cadrer les diverses etudes de cas presentees dans cet ouvrage collectif, l’auteure propose une analyse comparative systematique des federations belge et canadienne. La typologie elaboree souligne les similarites et les differences entre les deux federations qui pourraient expliquer l’impact similaire – ou differencie – de l’intersection entre structures federales et politiques environnementales. English Abstract: This article is drawn from a special issue dealing with the intersection between federal structures and environmental policies in Belgium and in Canada. The author presents a systematic comparative analysis of the two federations through a typology that underlines similarities and differences between the two federations, so as to better assess the dialectical impact of federalism on the one hand, and environmental policies on the other.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.062 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".