Equalization, Regional Development, and Political Trust: The Section 36/Atlantic Accords Controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The controversy generated by the federal government’s unilateral alteration of the Atlan- tic Accords,1 and the subsequent bitter political standoff between the federal government and the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfound- land and Labrador, was the initial stimulus for this article. The agreements, the alleged breach of trust involved in their unilateral alteration, and the political fallout, manoeuvrings, and ne- gotiations that followed, raise a number of is- sues about the mechanisms and pathologies of executive federalism in Canada. This episode also provides some insight into a continuing source of misunderstanding and grievance that persists in centre-periphery relations in Canada — the issues of equalization and regional devel- opment. The purpose of this article is to use the controversy as a case study to inquire into these issues, with a view to making an incremental contribution to the critical literature on the in- stitutions of Canadian federalism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".