Minority nations v. constitutional architectures: A critical appraisal of unitary and federal models of the modern state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Are the constitutional orders framed on a federal architecture more welcoming vis‐à‐vis the presence of minority nations within their midst than are the ones inspired by a unitarian logic? From an ideal‐typical perspective, to what degree unitary and federal models of the modern state are indeed meeting or conflicting with minority nations' most typical claim to be formally recognised and to possess the institutional anchorage to self‐govern and self‐determinate? Mobilising an analytical framework derived from the Societal Culture Index, this article combines constitutional studies with the tools of political theory. It argues that both unitary and federal models of the sovereign state have the potential to promote a normative rationale, that is, after all, fairly hospitable towards minority nations' typical claims. Nevertheless, it stresses that the normative rationale of federal systems in general, and asymmetrical federalism in particular, leads to constitutional architectures that shall be most hospitable towards minority nations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".