Les relations intergouvernementales dans les systèmes fédéraux : omniprésentes, idiosyncrasiques, opaques et essentielles (Intergovernmental Relations in Federal Systems: Ubiquitous, Idiosyncratic, Opaque, and Essential)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French abstract: Quelle que soit la maniere dont ils sont organises sur le plan institutionnel, tous les systemes federaux comportent des mecanismes prevoyant des interactions entre les partenaires federaux. Les « relations intergouvernementales » (RIG) font reference a l’ensemble des modalites qui regissent ces interactions. Les RIG empruntent des formes diverses et variees; elles evoluent avec le temps et en fonction des domaines politiques. Elles constituent neanmoins le « lubrifiant » essentiel de tout systeme federal, et, de ce fait, elles sont omnipresentes. Apres une breve revue des defis terminologiques propres aux RIG (et leur compagnon de route, le « federalisme cooperatif »), ce chapitre examine les principaux acteurs des RIG, ainsi que l’eventail de techniques legislatives – et surtout executives – dont ils disposent pour organiser leurs interactions. Cette breve contribution illustre le fait que les federations reposant sur une « tradition de droit civil continental » sont plus susceptibles d’organiser les RIG par le biais de mecanismes juridiques que leurs homologues issus de la tradition plus pragmatique de la common law. Au risque de simplifier une realite autrement plus complexe, on peut emettre l’hypothese – le constat? – que les federations de common law ont tendance a considerer les RIG d’un point de vue principalement (mais pas exclusivement) politique, alors que celles qui sont issues de la tradition « civiliste » les abordent suivant une predisposition « legicentriste », donc davantage axee sur le droit. Neanmoins, les RIG jouent des roles similaires dans les differents systemes federaux, quel que soit leur niveau de formalite ou de juridicite. English abstract: Regardless of institutional design, all federal systems imply substantial degrees of interaction between federal partners. “Intergovernmental relations” (IGRs) refer to the many modalities through which this interaction takes place. IGRs take many shapes and forms. They fluctuate with time and according to policy areas. In this sense, they are idiosyncratic. They are, however, the essential “oil in the machinery” of every federal system, and as such may be rather ubiquitous. Following a short incursion in the terminological challenges relating to IGRs (and their companion, “comparative federalism”), this article explores the actors in the IGR game as well as the rich catalogue of legislative — and mostly executive — techniques on which these actors rely to structure their relations. This brief overview of IGRs suggests that federations grounded in the “continental civil law tradition” are more likely to structure IGRs through legal mechanisms and norms than their more pragmatic “common law” counterparts. Though this is a significant simplification, one can hypothesize — or observe? — that the latter tend to consider IGRs primarily (though not exclusively) through a political lens, while federations with “civilian” origins tackle them with a legal propensity, from a perspective centred on statutory law. Yet, regardless of informality and legal status, IGRs play similar functions in various federal systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".