MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194232123 · doi:10.21685/2072-3016-2021-2-1

Constitutional federal process: essential characteristics and national-state characteristics (a comparative study)

2021· article· en· W3194232123 on OpenAlex
A. D. Gulyakov

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

VenueUniversity proceedings Volga region Social sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)Process (computing)Political scienceFederal stateComputer sciencePublic administrationProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. In the era of global transformation, affecting the sphere of state building, the importance of complex, federal systems is increasing. To describe them, it is advisable to use unified approaches in the form of models, an important component of which is such a structural unit as the constitutional federal process. The purpose of the article is to develop the characteristics of the process of this type and compare its course in the leading federations of the world. Materials and methods. The author uses materials from the constitutions of the world’s leading federations, and in a number of cases – and court decisions, which assess federal relations. The article is based on comparative legal and comparative state studies methods. Results. The study of federations of the first settlement type (USA, Canada, Australia) indicates their complete or almost complete constitutional monism. In the adaptation of constitutional laws, court decisions played a certain role (and for the United States a leading role). At the same time, Canada demonstrates a paradoxical deviation in the course of its development from a centralized to a decentralized federation. For European federations (Switzerland, Austria, Germany), one or another version of constitutional pluralism is more characteristic. Switzerland experienced evolutionary constitutional transformations, while Austria and Germany were marked by an intermittent constitutional process. Switzerland was characterized by a gradual weakening of the original decentralization, Austria managed to maintain an initially centralized state, and Germany was predominantly characterized by a moderately centralized development vector. India, as the most successful postcolonial federation under constitutional monism, has managed to rely on its flexible use and strengthen highly centralized federal relations. A rigid, centralized vector of development was implemented in the Soviet-Russian model of federalism, and it was based on constitutional pluralism. In Soviet times, its foundation was Marxist ideology, in post-Soviet times, Eurasian identity. Conclusions. Among the leading federations of the world, there is a significant multivariance of the constitutional federal process, which prompts researchers to abandon any pre-agreed dogmas about “right” or “wrong” federalism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.278 · 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