Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the introduction to the book, federalism was defined as a combination of self-rule and shared rule. Federalism thus understood has four components: power allocation, conflict resolution, political safeguards of federalism, and intergovernmental relations. Bringing together the findings with regard to these four components, this concluding chapter identifies four approaches to the quintessentially federal objective of striking a balance between unity and diversity in the foreign relations context. The US approach constitutes a ‘unity +’ approach, the Canadian approach an ‘external unity, internal diversity’ approach, and the Belgian approach a ‘diversity +’ approach. Compared with these three federations, the EU’s brand of foreign relations federalism represents a ‘diversity ++’ approach, characterized as it is by a balance between unity and diversity that tilts quite strongly—and arguably altogether too strongly—towards the pole of diversity. This negative assessment of the emphasis of the EU’s foreign affairs constitution on diversity is justified due to the democratic deficit that it entails. Diversity as it is understood in the EU foreign affairs constitution has a cost: the strong political safeguards of foreign relations federalism and the concomitantly weak checks on the two Councils shield EU foreign policy-making from the constraints imposed by representative democracy. The final section of this concluding chapter puts forward three proposals for reform that aim to put EU foreign relations on a firmer democratic footing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.205 | 0.064 |
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".