MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056543025 · doi:10.1353/tlj.0.0010

Recognizing Quebec in the Constitution of Canada: Using the Bilateral Constitutional Amendment Process

2008· article· en· W2056543025 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David Cameron, Jacqueline D. Krikorian

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionLawFrenchPolitical scienceNegotiationConstitutional lawConstitutional amendmentPopulationSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While there are many facets to Canada's perennial constitutional crisis, one issue dominates the debate: the recognition of the specificity of Quebec. The problem has been tackled but not resolved during a series of constitutional negotiations over the last forty years. Few believe that a further round of general constitutional discussions would successfully address this issue. A little-known provision in the Constitution could be employed, however, to begin the process of dealing with the challenge. Pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the governments of Quebec and Canada could adopt a bilateral constitutional amendment recognizing and entrenching French as the predominant language of the province and, in the process, effectively recognizing the Québécois nation in the Constitution of Canada. Constitutionalizing this contemporary reality would not only enhance the linguistic and cultural security of Quebec's francophone population by formally acknowledging the central element of the province's distinctive character but also ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in a manner that both considers the interests of the francophone community and balances them with individual rights and freedoms in Quebec.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.193 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207