Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies the historical representation of the two main national communities in Canada; that is, the English-Canadian and the French-Canadian.Throughout the history of the English Canadian community, one cansee an ambitious national project. The national construction of Canada suggests the existence of a neutral model of government but, when looking at this carefully, it is possible to see something quite different. English-speaking historians from Canada have normally introduced the concept of a unitary federalism as the most perfect form of the Canadian integration project. This integrating federalism, that does not lead to emancipation, stems from thecentralist views of John Macdonald, one of the fathers of Canadian federalism. This approach has been kept for over 140 years of common history and, to this date, continues to be one of the main obstacles for minority nations within Canada. To strengthen their thesis, the authors base their work on an extensive analysis exploring the three big strategies used by the central government to assert its authority on the member States of the Canadian Federation in the long term: using the judicial power, centralizing powers andglobalization. The strategies used have varied depending on the economic scenario, political leaders and the political power relations regarding the links between the Federation and the provinces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".