MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230527454 · doi:10.1080/09692290126408

The multi-level state: Canada in the semi-periphery of both continentalism and globalization

2001· article· en· W4230527454 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Clarkson

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of International Political Economy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationCivil societyState (computer science)PoliticsCorporate governanceWelfare statePolitical economyPolitical scienceEconomic systemEconomicsPublic administrationSociologyMarket economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article looks at an old subject (the state of the state) under new conditions (accelerating globalization and fragmentation), using Canada as the case in point. My first concern is linguistic: such labels as 'post-Keynesian', 'post-welfare', and even 'post-national' tell us more about what the state may have been than what it has become. These 'post-' categories do not capture the extent to which governmental functions have been redistributed – upward to international institutions, downward to sub-national states, and laterally to the private sector. Nor do they direct our attention to the dynamic interconnections that are linking evolving governmental forms with civil society. I go on to consider to what extent these difficulties can be resolved by considering the 'state' as a nested, multi-tiered set of institutions providing governance on five levels – from the municipal and the regional, through the national to the continental and global. Political economy analysis of the dynamic that links these levels of governance with civil society and transnational market forces may tell us better than the post-it labels that the present capability of the Canadian, or any other, state is less bleak than it may have seemed.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of International Political EconomySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207