Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this research is to focus on alternative ways of perceiving the same reality: The actions taken by the FLQ and the authorities during the October 1970 crisis. Among the abundant literature that was published during and after the crisis and often with strong emotional overtones, two main attempts of explanation have emerged: 1) One trying to describe the actions chosen, as the more or less purposive acts of unified institutions or groups (the FLQ, the Authorities) and which is often found among either English Canadian commentators or close sources to the Government; 2) The other one attempting to relate the chosen actions, as the resultant of various bargaining games among players in the institutions or groups (the intellectuals, the activists, in the case of the FLQ, Quebec, Ottawa and Montreal in the case of the Government) and which is often found among proponents of the New Left or Quebec Independentists. Two aspects of the crisis however, have largely been ignored or neglected: The role of the information units and the role of the implementation units in the shaping of Government decisions, except in rare cases and only to deplore their inefficiency or their prejudices. Given this background, we propose to focus our attention on five main questions: How can the actions of the FLQ and of the authorities be explained in the context of a unitary and comprehensively rational actor perspective? How can the actions of the FLQ and of the authorities be explained in the context of a unitary and boundedly rational actor perspective? - How can the actions of the authorities be explained, as being the output of multiple, boundedly rational, separate information units? How can the outcome resulting from the authorities' chosen action be explained as the output of multiple, boundedly rational, separate implementation units? How can the actions of the FLQ and of the authorities be explained, as the resultant of the bargaining process taking place among multiple, boundedly rational, separate decision units? In trying to answer those questions, we will draw heavily on the work of Graham Allison (Essence of Decision, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1971), whose methodology and terminology will be used abundantly as far as the basic concepts are concerned. In many cases, as we have not got any access to "internal" information, we will try to reconstitute the decision processes from the evidence at hand, hypothesizing the developments that have taken place. This same limitation (the lack of internal information), will lead us to concentrate mostly on the repetitive character of bounded behaviour and to search for antecedents among past actions. In doing so, we hope to minimize our own prejudices and contribute to the understanding of a crisis which has appeared to many as a turning point in Canadian history.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».