Cooperative Development Gap in Québec and Saskatchewan 1980 to 2010: A Tale of Two Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTThis study uses Gramscian hegemony theory and the social movement approach to cooperative development to investigate the cooperative development gap that opened up between the provinces of Québec and Saskatchewan from 1980 to 2010. First, provincial sector growth is compared across several indices to establish this gap’s empirical scope and scale. Second, historical research and fieldwork findings are used to illuminate the gap’s origins and its historical significance. The article concludes that the development gap has been largely driven by bloc formation and dissolution—the historic erosion of Saskatchewan’s traditional, agrarian-cooperative bloc and the renewal and expansion of Québec’s social economy bloc.RÉSUMÉCette étude utilise la théorie de l’hégémonie de Gramsci et la méthode par le mouvement social pour le développement des coopératives afin d’enquêter sur l’écart qui s’est creusé entre les provinces du Québec et de la Saskatchewan de 1980 à 2010 en ce qui a trait au développement des coopératives. Tout d’abord, pour établir la portée et l’échelle empiriques de cet écart, cette étude compare la croissance de ce secteur entre les deux provinces. Ensuite, l’origine de l’écart et sa signification historique sont mis en lumière grâce aux recherches historiques et aux conclusions tirées de l’étude sur le terrain. Finalement, il est conclut dans cet article que l’écart de développement a été majoritairement créé par la formation et la dissolution de blocs – l’érosion par le temps du bloc coopératif agraire traditionnel de la Saskatchewan ainsi que le renouveau et l’expansion du bloc d’économie sociale du Québec.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".