Bibliographic record
Abstract
A notable characteristic of the German federation, by comparison with the Canadian and United States federations, is the extensive constitutional and political interlocking of the federal and state governments. The federal government has a very broad range of exclusive, concurrent (with federal law prevailing) and framework legislative jurisdiction. But the Länder in turn have a mandatory constitutional responsibility for applying and administering most of these federal laws. While the legislative powers of the federal government are much more extensive than in Canada or the United States, another significant feature of the German federation is that the Länder are more directly involved in decision-making at the federal level than the states or provinces in virtually any other federation. This is achieved through the constitutional requirement that the second chamber, the Bundesrat, is composed of Land first ministers and senior ministers serving as ex officio delegates of their Land governments. The Bundesrat possesses an absolute veto on all federal legislation affecting the Länder. In practice about 60 percent of federal legislation falls in this category and therefore the voice of the Länder through the Bundesrat is highly influential in federal policy-making. Thus, the Bundesrat is a key institution in the interlocking federal state relationship and the extensive joint decisionmaking that occurs within the German federation including those on financial interrelationships.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".