Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to determine the factors that have contributed to the expansion in the international activities of the subnational actors and to identify the issues that prevail in the relations between the Canadian provinces and the subnational states of North America. Likewise, to identify the strategies and mechanisms that favor the relationships between these subnational governments. Methodology: the qualitative methodological strategy comprises of two dimensions: the first focuses on the factors which explain these dynamics and on the conceptual revision to refer to the transnational activities of subnational governments in North America, in particular the paradiplomacy. The second one examines official information, reports and publications from national and subnational governments in the region. Subsequently, the international activities of these governments were examined to determine their nature, characteristics and objectives. Results: it was highlighted that the international activities of subnational governments are linked to economic development and to issues such as the environment, natural resources, sustainable development, security, culture, education, science and technology. They are carried out through institutional deliberation and decision-making forums, international offices and cooperation agreements. Conclusions: subnational governments contribute to the governance of North America, through the formulation of regional public policies to face common challenges. The agreements are limited in the areas of jurisdiction of the subnational governments and, at the same time, they show/disclose a certain degree of autonomy with respect to the central government.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".