Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chapters 4 and 5 cover the second dimension of self-rule: conflict resolution. This chapter, Chapter 4, looks at how conflicts between the federal and member unit governments in the conduct of foreign relations are resolved in the US, Canada, and Belgium. The next chapter, Chapter 5, looks at how the same issue plays out in the EU. Chapter 4 compares the different conflict resolution mechanisms in terms of their degree of formality, and in terms of the institution that holds responsibility for resolving the conflict (the courts or the political institutions). It shows that in Canada conflict resolution mechanisms are informal and political; in Belgium they are formal and political; and in the US they are formal and judicial. Overall, the chapter demonstrates how conflict resolution plays a central role, in particular in the US where, in keeping with the principles of dual sovereignty, the supremacy of federal law and policy over conflicting state law carries much weight. By contrast, the scarcity of conflict resolution mechanisms in both Canada and Belgium, and their informal nature in Canada, help to explain why intergovernmental relations have become so important in both Belgium and Canada. Because the Belgian and Canadian federal governments cannot easily impose their preferences on the member units, collaboration and cooperation become all the more important.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".