The End of the “Two Solitudes”? The Presence (or Absence) of the Work of French-speaking Scholars in Canadian Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The paper explores the presence (or the lack thereof) of references to work done by French-speaking scholars in the broad literature dealing with Canadian politics over the past ten years. It surveys books published by commercial and university presses and analyzes both quantitatively and qualitatively the reference and use of scholarly work by French-speaking scholars published in English and French. The paper sheds light on the sociology and the politics of scientific production in the field of Canadian politics. It examines a phenomenon that is both troubling and revealing of the unequal status of scholarly contributions to the field of Canadian politics. Moreover, it questions the extent to which the current Canadian politics field reflects a comprehensive and inclusive understanding of the Canadian political dynamic. Résumé. L'article se penche sur la présence (ou l'absence) de références aux travaux réalisés par les politologues francophones dans la vaste littérature sur la politique canadienne publiée au cours des dix dernières années. Il passe en revue des ouvrages publiés par des maisons d'édition commerciales ou universitaires et procède à une analyse quantitative et qualitative du texte afin de déterminer dans quelle mesure les travaux des universitaires francophones, publiés en français ou en anglais, ont été pris en considération. Cet article apporte un éclairage différent, à la fois sociologique et politique, sur le processus de production scientifique dans le champ de la politique canadienne. Il met en lumière un phénomène troublant qui révèle le statut inégal des contributions scientifiques dans l'univers politique canadien. Il s'interroge sur le caractère global et inclusif de la compréhension courante de la dynamique politique canadienne.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".