Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses the capacity of Canadian federalism to articulate andaccommodate the dual and regionalist character defining Canada througha range of arguments and opinions both for and against that have been generatedboth within the Canadian Federation and abroad. From the standpointof the Quebec sovereignists, federalism is highly restrictive of the Quebecnation’s freedom to express itself, by itself, within the Canadian contextas well as within international ambits; for Quebec nationalists, the termQuebec “nation” implies—indeed, requires—a “Quebec state”. But, fromthe standpoint of the Quebec federalists (a good number of whom understandQuebec as a sociological and political nation), the future of Quebeclies with its membership of the Canadian Federation, however much this hasto recognise Quebec as a “differential society” within Canada, and howevermuch it has to ensure that Quebec will develop and promote its interests asa nation. For yet others, the decentralist character of Canadian federalism,and the extensive provisions for asymmetry built into the system, mean that Quebec is already perhaps the most powerful sub-national government inthe world, such that it already has the powers necessary to fulfil its nationaldestiny, within the federation. Opinion outside Quebec ranges from thosewho accept this view, and embrace asymmetry, to those who argue that Quebecis simply one of ten existing provinces, each of which is distinct, andwhich should all be treated as equals in accordance with the constitutionaland political framework.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it