Referendum Rhetoric and Nationalist Mobilisation: A Comparison of the 1980 and 1995 Quebec Referenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the impact of changes in the international environment on the nationalist discourse in Quebec by focusing on the 35 hours of formal debate in the National Assembly on both the 1980 and 1995 referendum questions. It was hypothesised that changes in the international political economy, namely increasing globalisation and the advent of the Canada-US FTA followed by the NAFTA, would produce a noticeable shift in the types of arguments employed by the independantiste MNAS in the 1995 referendum. The author concludes that there were some readily discernable differences in the pro-sovereignty rhetoric from one referendum to the next. Specifically, whereas the advocates of sovereignty in 1980 spent a significant amount of their allocated time on the defensive, both defending the viability of the project and criticising the federal government, in 1995, sovereignty was justified on the basis that it would enable the PQ government to both implement its projet de societe and meet the economic ch...
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".