MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986424411 · doi:10.7202/015960ar

Le Rapport de la Commission Tremblay (1953-1956), testament politique de la pensée traditionaliste canadienne-française1

2007· article· fr· W1986424411 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dominique Foisy-Geoffroy

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d histoire de l Amérique française · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 1953, le premier ministre Maurice Duplessis confie à la Commission Tremblay le mandat d’étudier le problème des relations fédérales-provinciales au Canada du point de vue fiscal, dans le cadre de la lutte menée par Québec contre la politique centralisatrice d’après-guerre du gouvernement fédéral. Les commissaires, qui déposent leur rapport en 1956, fondent leurs recommandations sur un impressionnant étaiement philosophique, auquel cet article est consacré. Sous l’impulsion de trois des intellectuels canadiens-français les plus en vue de l’époque, Esdras Minville, le père Richard Arès, s.j. et François-Albert Angers, la commission a en effet produit une véritable somme théorique et pratique du nationalisme traditionaliste canadien-français, synthétisant réflexions et projets de réforme qui mûrissaient depuis les années 1920. Nous nous penchons ici plus précisément sur la pensée politique « classique-chrétienne » inspirant le rapport, qui justifie philosophiquement l’autonomisme canadien-français, donne leur sens aux exhaustives recommandations du rapport et fonde l’ambitieux projet de civilisation nationaliste, conservateur et catholique qu’élaborent les commissaires autour du concept de « fédéralisme social ».

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d histoire de l Amérique françaiseSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207