Bibliographic record
Abstract
Often dismissed as the political preoccupation of the chattering classes, constitutional politics has nonetheless had an immense impact on working people in English Canada and Quebec. Constitutional questions have played an important role in dividing workers along regional and linguistic lines, and divisions within the labour movement have closely reflected the common regional and linguistic cleavages in Canadian society more generally. However, in the same way that constitutional questions have helped shape the character of organized labour in Canada, the labour movements of both Quebec and English Canada have attempted to reciprocally influence the character of constitutional questions in an effort to improve the economic clout and political power of trade unions. By adopting competing political perspectives concerning the powerful centripetal and centrifugal economic forces that characterize the changing nature of federal-provincial relations, the labour movement in Quebec and the labour movement in English Canada have attempted to influence constitutional politics in contradictory ways; the latter by attempting to strengthen the role of the federal government at the expense of the provinces, and the former by attempting to strengthen the power of Quebec City vis-a-vis Ottawa. This article is concerned with organized labour’s response to Canadian constitutional politics during Brian Mulroney’s tenure as prime minister (1984–1993). Specifically, the article argues that the political cleavages surrounding failed attempts at constitutional reform under Mulroney were reflected in the internal politics of the labour movement, eventually leading to the creation of a “sovereignty-association” partnership agreement between the Canadian Labour Congress (clc) and the Quebec Federation of Labour (ftq). Despite the establishment of the clc in 1956, it is impossible to speak of a research note / note de recherche
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 | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".