Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although federalism of various types has existed throughout history, ancient and medieval federations were, on the whole, short-lived.1 Most federations were non-existent by the time of the enlightenment and the rise of nation-states. So-called modern federalism stems from the American republic founded in 1787, which in many ways is the archetypal one, representing the creation of a federal government by compact among several previous constituent units – e pluribus unum. The federalist structure is becoming increasingly popular as 90 percent of states today contain a plurality of national, ethnic or linguistic groups.2 Nevertheless, a normative theory of federalism has not been fully developed.3 Indeed, Wayne Norman notes that in the history of modern political philosophy, questions of federalism have generally attracted no more than a footnote or a chapter, although cursory discussion can be found in the writings of such luminaries as J.S. Mill, Bodin, Grotius, Montesquieu, Bentham, Constant and Sidgwick.4 Such a theory will aid in setting standards with which we can we assess, evaluate, justify, defend or attack the structure and operation of the federal system. Although I do not attempt in this paper to elucidate a complete theory of federalism through a normative lens, I will attempt to demonstrate one of the primary means by which citizens in a federal state (in particular, Canada) evaluate the legitimacy of government action. (author's abstract)
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".