El finançament dels governs subcentrals en els països federals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to describe the main characteristics of the financing of sub-central bodies in federal states. The article focuses chiefly on bodies of an intermediate level, that is, the states that form the federation. The analysis is based on the experience of Germany, Australia, Austria, Canada, Switzerland and the USA. At the same time, the article makes references throughout to the financing of the [Spanish] Autonomous Communities to determine whether this is in line with the sub-central financing of those countries analysed. Finally, it also highlights the manner in which the model of financing in the new Catalan Statute of Autonomy brings us closer to the characteristics of a federal model. The article's analysis proceeds through the assessment of a series of underlying issues: the degree of decentralization in federal states, both with reference to expenses and income from taxation; expense functions by levels of government; income structure in governments of an intermediate level, highlighting the degree of financial dependence; the tributary power and assignation of taxes at a sub-central level; the subsidies of taxation levelling, and finally the political-institutional mechanisms of coordination between the various levels of government.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".