Notice bibliographique
Résumé
With this issue, JCR/REC'S Point - Counterpoint feature wishes to counter the brief mass media clips that so often tend to sensationalize and distort. Matthew Barrett's Architects of Our Future strives for a balance between centralization in some areas and decentralization in others as part of its call for renewed federalism. Originally delivered in Calgary as a speech at the Bank of Montreal's annual meeting, it is a thoughtful text - even if it risks being better remembered, at least in the short run, more for its financial forecasts than for its insights. In the current context of fiscal restraint there inevitably will be, as the author suggests, greater cooperation between government, business, labour and universities. Sensible suggestions whether or not they are framed by constituent assemblies - can sometimes come from all four quarters.M.L.Architects of Our FutureThese are not ordinary times in Canada they are not ordinary in economic terms, and they are not ordinary in political terms. I would like to talk about the interplay of economic and political forces and the influence they are already having on the prospects for our country. I want to be frank with you. I am increasingly uneasy about our national condition.Unemployment is too high. There is a widening disparity between haves and have - nots in society. Economies in transition show only fragile growth, failing to generate sufficient wealth to maintain traditional levels of social support. Today's youth are facing the prospect of a life that is not as promising as that of their parents.It is not a comforting picture. Yet as I cast my mind back over 1995, and as I scan the landscape of these opening days of 1996, it is not these problems which rank as the highest priority, important though they certainly are. It is our national unity crisis, made right here in Canada, that looms above all else. It is my concern that if we do not confront it with vigour, if we do not make real progress toward its resolution in the next twelve months, all our other problems, challenging enough in themselves, will become worse by orders of magnitude.Some will say that anyone focused on the constitution is out of touch with the real, everyday concerns of Canadians. We hear that everyone is fed up, frustrated with never - ending wrangling. Many Canadians are sceptical of anything theyhear from so - called elites and many are resistant to any use of the dreaded c - word by our leaders who should, it is said, be concentrating on jobs and the economy. And they are right, to a point. But there is more to it, I submit. Much more. Let me ask you to briefly suspend disbelief while I try to make the thankless case that far from discouraging politicians from tackling the national unity issue, we should be urging them on.Let me take you back to the night of last October 30. We all remember it - the night when Canada almost died.In a voter turnout of 90 per cent, very nearly half the people of Quebec voted to leave Canada. As the results trickled in with excruciating slowness, it was stunning to realize that we were on the brink of a crisis for which the country seemed totally unprepared. How is it possible, I wondered, that one of the most civilized and prosperous societies on the face of the planet could come so close to self - destructing?Can so many people in Quebec really believe that separation is worth losing their birthright to Canadian citizenship, and risking profound economic damage? Can so many people outside Quebec believe that while the loss of Quebec would be regrettable, its consequences wouldn't really affect them or where they live? If Quebec separates, is it certain the rest of Canada would hold together, when the dam of inertia, habit, and custom broke, and when every region and province scrambled to better its position in a Canada with radically new political dynamics? …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».