Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since the federal founding of Canada in 1867, Québec has substantiallycontributed to the various stages in the evolution of the Canadian state and inthe interpretation of Canadian federalism. In the aftermath of the referendumsof 1980 and 1995, and considering that a third sovereignty referendum appearsquite unlikely in Québec, this article provides a survey and critical understandingof current federalist thinking and current academic discourses concerning federalismin Québec. Although the article is mostly about intellectual history, it integratescurrent political developments in the province of Québec, governed bythe Liberals led by Jean Charest since 2003, and in Canada as a whole as well,governed since 2006 by consecutive Conservative minority governments underthe leadership of Stephen Harper. The article shows that in the major academicdiscipines of constitutional law, history, political science and philosophy, Québecinterpretations of Canadian federalism continue to be dominated by a paradigmformulated by the Report of the Tremblay Commission, a forum for enquiry onconstitutional matters created by the Québec government more than fifty yearsago. The dominant paradigm continues to propose an «existential» approachfocusing on greater autonomy and recognition for Québec, while at the sametime adopting an instrumental-utilitarian stance towards Canada. While thisapproach continues to be developed with great academic sophistication, in mostof these disciplines a certain federalist «revival» is under way, attempting topropose a better equilibrium between the requirements of autonomy-recognitionfor Québec and those of solidarity-interdependence with the whole of Canada.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".