Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book examines the capacity of federal systems to adapt to changing conditions of governance in an era of globalization.It focuses on recent attempts by two older federations, Canada and Australia, to reform their "economic unions."Reform in both cases required collaboration among governments but had the potential to erode federal values such as diversity and flexibility.Economic union is a regime of market rules embodying specific norms and institutions.The norms encompass economic and social values and objectives, such as degrees of liberalization, efficiency, and equity.The institutions include constitutional provisions and law-making and regulatory processes.Although they were part of the original rationale for creating the Canadian and Australian federations, these regimes came to be taken for granted.They were unable to deal with economic integration beyond their borders and contained equity and regional diversity arrangements that were unsustainable with increased international liberalization.Reform movements sought new market rules to increase economic competitiveness.The European Union's single market reforms, achieved through intergovernmental co-decision, became a prominent international benchmark for reform advocates.In the first part of this book, I introduce a set of concepts to analyse the politics of institutional change in this comparative study.These include economic integration and liberalization as the specific forms of globalization, situating Australia and Canada within the international political economy with important consequences for reform strategy, outlining major differences in the federal design and historic development of the two federations, and the role and type of intergovernmental relations in federal systems generally and the two cases.In the second part, I analyse the process and substance of reform.From 1979 to 1999, Canadian governments made several attempts at reform.They achieved only limited success through constitutional
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.526 | 0.335 |
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".