Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE RELEVANCE OF THE CANADIAN EXAMPLE In a book aimed at exploring the role of federal political systems and autonomy arrangements in the management of ethnic differences and conflicts, this chapter focuses on the lessons, positive and negative, provided by the Canadian experience. While, in many respects, there are significant contrasts between Canada and other federations that must always be borne in mind, there are some features of the Canadian federation which make it particularly relevant to the examination of the interface between federalism and ethnic diversity. Unlike some other federations, such as the United States and Switzerland which were created by the aggregation of pre-existing states and cantons, the formation of Canada involved a substantial devolutionary process. A major part of its creation as a federation in 1867 was the splitting of the formerly unitary Province of Canada into two new provinces (Ontario, predominantly English-speaking and Protestant, and Quebec, predominantly Frenchspeaking and Roman Catholic), each autonomous and responsible for its own affairs in those areas where the two communities were sharply divided. To these provinces were added two smaller provinces (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia). The Canadian founders, concerned about maintaining effective unity, in 1867 adopted a predominantly federal structure that combined provincial autonomy with some constitutional quasi-unitary central controls over the provinces. Thus, the Canadian federal constitution, like those later established in India and Malaysia, and most recently in South Africa, was a hybrid combining a basically federal form with some unitary features.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".