Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume on the distribution of powers and responsibilities in federal democracies is the second contribution to a series of practical books on federalism being published as a part of the program entitled "A Global Dialogue on Federalism."The goal of this Global Dialogue is to engage experts from around the world in comparative conversations and debates about core themes and issues of federalism, the point being to build an international network that enables practitioners, students, scholars, and others to learn from one another, to share best practices, and to enhance their understanding of the prospects as well as the problems of federalism as a mode of governance in today's world, especially in relation to democracy, freedom, prosperity, and peace. The Global Dialogue is sponsored jointly by the Forum of Federations and the International Association of Centers for Federal Studies (IACFS).The Forum is an international network on federalism that seeks to strengthen democratic governance by promoting dialogue on and understanding of the values, practices, principles, and possibilities of federalism.The IACFS is an association of centres and institutes throughout the world that maintains a research and teaching focus on political systems that have federal features.The work of the Forum of Federations and the IACFS is part of a broader endeavour to build and strengthen democracy through federalism when and where appropriate.As a mode of governance that seeks to combine self-rule for regional and minority interests with shared rule for general and common purposes, federalism is necessarily of interest to advocates of democracy.This is particularly true in a world in which the vast majority of nation-states are multinational, multilingual, multireligious, and/or multicultural.Indeed, there has been a tremendous upsurge of interest in federalism since the emergence of a new wave of democratization in the late i g8os.This worldwide interest in federalism is directly
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.542 | 0.329 |
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".