Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federalism is often viewed as being of administrative, rather than genuinely philosophical, interest. This is understandable: many theories thereof are insensitive to empirical developments. It is also unfortunate: federalism implicates basic philosophical issues (e.g., sovereignty, distributive justice) and philosophy can help further empirical studies. This work thus provides conceptual analysis of federalism. More specifically, it argues for adopting ‘institutional’ approaches to federalism on which federalism is understood as a doctrine advocating for the adoption of federations to allocate decision-making authority within governance units (e.g., countries). Such approaches were once-dominant in literature but purportedly fail to address developments in comparative federalism. To address such empirical data, many scholars now instead adopt ‘ideological’ approaches to federalism promoting political organizations that combine “shared- and self-rule.” However, philosophical strictures and practical realities demand a more circumscribed approach. The dominant ideological approach is either too broad to be a distinct normative doctrine or too narrow to apply to many paradigmatic federal bodies, undermining the purported explanatory value that led to its development. Variants do not fulfill several other criteria for plausible philosophies of federalism. Institutional approaches, by contrast, provide a distinct, action-guiding approach to authority allocation and thus play a unique normative role. They also do not raise as many empirical worries as many claim.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".