The Quebec <i>Patronat:</i> Proposing a Neo‐liberal Political Economy after All*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les études récentes portant sur le patronat québécois avancent que ce dernier a modernisé son discours, passant du néolibéralisme à une concertation et à une coopération positive avec les syndicats et l'État. Ces études suggèrent que le patronat québécois est en train de développer une économie politique distincte du modèle libéral en vigueur ailleurs au Canada. Cet article analyse le discours du Conseil du patronat du Québec (CPQ) depuis sa création pour évaluer la pertinence de ces arguments. Il conclut que la vision stratégique du CPQ est restée néolibérale depuis le début des années 1980, ce qui suggére la nécessité de la prudence dans la formulation des arguments sur l'exceptionnalisme économique du Québec. Recent studies of the Quebec patronat argue that it has “modernized” its discourse, moving from neo‐liberalism to the embrace of positive‐sum concertation and co‐operation with unions and the State. These studies suggest Quebec's employers' associations are developing a different political economy than the liberal one found in the Rest of Canada. This article assesses these arguments using the discourse of the Conseil du patronat du Québec (CPQ) since its inception. It argues that the CPQ's strategic outlook has remained steadfastly neo‐liberal since the early 1980s, which suggests the need for caution in developing accounts of Quebec's economic exceptionalism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".