The referendum as an instrument for decision-making in autonomy-related situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Markku Suksi examines the use of the referendum in the context of autonomy against the background of national and international jurisprudence concerning self-determination referendums and the categories of self-determination established in the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration. The permissibility of the referendum in such contexts is not to be doubted, but constraints are still placed for situations where such a referendum would threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state to which the territory belongs. Most referendums are held within the category of ‘any other political status’, that is, about the issue of whether or not to continue as an autonomous entity within the state, while outright independence referendums are in a clear minority (although their high profile nature tends to overshadow other self-determination referendums). Most states engaging in self-determination referendums concerning autonomous entities offer independence as an option, but independence often receives little support, and even in many actual independence referendums, such as those of Quebec and Scotland, the vote does not result in support for independence, but for continued sub-state existence. Therefore, it seems that secessionists have hijacked the self-determination issue and succeeded in sidelining all other facets of the issue.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".