MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Main Scenarios for the Formation of Territorial Autonomies in the Modern World (Constitutional and Legal Aspect)

2019· article· en· W2923674330 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLex Russica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSovereigntyConstitutionalismInstitutionalisationPopulationAutonomyNegotiationDemocracyLaw and economicsGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)LawSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the analysis of the practices of institutionalization of constitutional and legal status of territorial autonomies of Bolivia, Great Britain, Denmark, India, Indonesia, Canada, China, Moldova, Uzbekistan, Finland on the basis of the criteria and methods of their formation, it is indicated that there are two main scenarios. According to the first one, territorial autonomies are formed on the basis of international and national legal acts. The second scenario assumes the formation of autonomies based on national legal acts only. In the structure of the first scenario, territorial autonomies formed as a result of negotiations between the parties to the conflict (confrontation model) and in the Directive order (Directive model) are separated. In the structure of the second scenario, territorial autonomies established following the negotiations on the basis a peaceful compromise or as a result of confrontation (consensus and confrontation models), as well as autonomies formed unilaterally (policy model) are highlighted. The conceptual requirements for the successful institutionalization of territorial autonomy are as follows: the presence of rooted in society and the state traditions of democracy and the rule of law; the establishment of a real regime of internal self-government; limited material and financial resources and the resulting dependence on the state; the absence of disputes about sovereignty; clarity of the formal legal structure of the constitutional legal status; small population and the territory of autonomy. In this case, the structure and content of these requirements are very mobile, and therefore can be combined in different proportions with different specific gravity. Typical examples of the most stable territorial autonomies (in terms of territorial integrity and unity of the state), in which these conditions are present in different volumes, are the autonomies of Bolivia, the Aland Islands, the Faroe Islands, Hong Kong and Macao. This category can also include Karakalpakstan and Nunavut because of their total dependence on the support of national governments. In turn, the potential for the development of separatist tendencies remains in the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland), India, Indonesia, China (Tibet), Moldova, and the Philippines.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it