New Trends in Canadian Federalism, 2d ed., edited by Frances Rocher and Miram Smith, Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2003, 399 pp., $37.95 paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If you wish to obtain a comprehensive view of contemporary Canadian federalism, this edition is a must for your bookshelf collection. The purpose of the book is to introduce students and other observers to the changes that have shaped the role and functions of Canadian federal institutions as well as federal-provincial relations. The first part of the collection, numbering seven chapters, deals with constitutional developments and basic questions of political identity in Canada and associated nationalism. The second part examines the evolution of federal relationships across six discrete policy areas. The contributors represent some of the most distinguished scholars in the field of federalism and in the area of policy expertise. A fundamental observation about Canadian federalism's evolution establishes a framework for the book. The editors write: [I]t must be recalled that the federal structure adopted in 1867 was basically a pragmatic agreement between elites, designed to equip the central government with the capacity for economic intervention while giving the provinces (Quebec in particular) sufficient leeway to ensure their cultural, linguistic, and religious development as defined by the elites of the day. The new state was founded on colonial assumptions of national dualism and racial hierarchy that defined Euro-Canadians as the only legitimate political actors in Canadian society. The recognition of English-French dualism, at least at the level of political discourse and practice, permitted French Canadians to embrace the project. However, the Canadian political and social context changed in ways that made political and institutional arrangements based on binationalism increasingly difficult for many Canadians, particularly outside Quebec. Quebec's political evolution since the early 1960s has only exacerbated tensions. The adoption of the federal multiculturalism policy, the entrenchment of a Charter of Rights centered on individual freedoms, and the quest of the First Nations for political, cultural, economic, and social recognition have delegitimated the Quebec-based idea of “two founding peoples.”
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.014 |
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".