Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the Canadian federal system. First, it focuses on the reasons for the choice of a federal system when the Canadian federation was created in 1867, on the main features of that system: the asymmetrical nature and the strongly centralized division of powers, and on its evolution. Second, it analyses the federal financial relations, the intergovernmetal relations and various issues relating to the structure and functioning of national institutions. Finally, it pays special attention to the changing and problematic relationship between Quebec and English Canada.Este artículo analiza el sistema federal canadiense. En primer lugar, se centra en las razones por las que se eligió un sistema federal en 1867, en las principales características del sistema: su naturaleza asimétrica y la centralizada división de poderes entre la Federación y las provincias, y en su evolución posterior. En segundo lugar, analiza las relaciones financieras e intergubernamentales, así como diversas cuestiones problemáticas sobre la estructura y funcionamiento de las instituciones federales. Finalmente, dedica un estudio pormenorizado a la relación cambiante y problemática entre Quebec y el Canadá inglés.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".