Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo analiza la historia del conflicto lingüístico entre el pueblo francófono y el pueblo anglófono dentro de la doble realidad cultural de Canadá y muestra el imperialismo inglés hacia el pueblo québécois a lo largo de su historia. Con respecto a la posible independencia de Quebec, el artículo habla a favor de un Canadá unido sin miedo de ofender a los québécois. Y se desprenden dos conclusiones: una emocional y otra racional. La emocional nos recuerda las palabras del profesor Russell: “Amo a Canadá”, “Canadá es un gran país”. En la racional se nos recuerda las trágicas consecuencias de la desintegración de imperios y naciones. Y se afirma que los québécois no van a vivir mejor si se separan del resto de Canadá. Lo que se necesita verdaderamente es un federalismo más interactivo y más económicamente independiente de los Estados Unidos.Abstract:This article examines the history of the linguistic conflict between Francophones and Anglophones within the double cultural reality of Canada and shows the English imperialism towards the Quebecois throughout their history. With regard to the possible independence of Quebec, the article discusses Canadian unity without fear of offending the Quebecois. Two conclusions stand out: one emotional and another rational. The emotional one reminds us of Professor Russell’s words: “I love Canada”, “Canada is a great place”. The rational conclusion reminds us of the tragic consequences of the disintegration of empires and nations. It is asserted that the Quebecois will not live better if they separate from the rest of Canada. What the country really needs is a federalism, more interactive and more economically independent from the United States
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".