Multivariance of the State Structure of Federalism (Comparative Historical and State Studies)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article justifies the need for a historical-state study approach by analyzing the models of federalism inherent in different countries. The structural elements of any model include the prerequisites and reasons that contributed to federalization, essential characteristics of federalism (including the genesis characteristics, historical typology, development vector), the main stages of the federalism development. Using the systemic and comparative methods, as well as the example of three first settlement models inherent in the USA, Canada, Australia, one European (German) and Russian models, the author shows and explains the features of federalism in these countries. In particular, there are more favorable conditions for the formation of federations in the first settlement societies and the well-known difficulties of their establishment in Europe (on the example of Germany). The article demonstrates the ideologically innovative nature of Soviet federalism and the rational construction of Russian (post-Soviet) federalism, which has not abandoned a high degree of centralization. The materials presented in the article allow not only to outline new features of the state structure of federalism, but also contribute to the development of the concept for reforming federative relationships
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".