MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076608672 · doi:10.1111/1467-9663.00168

Strategic Territorialisation: The Politics of Anglo–Montrealers

2001· article· en· W2076608672 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie‐Anne Boudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferendumPoliticsSovereigntyPolitical scienceSociologyLocalismDecentralizationState (computer science)SecessionFrontierPolitical economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constitutional entanglements in Canada–Quebec relations are well known. From one referendum on Quebec’s sovereignty to the other, from one pan–Canadian constitutional meeting to the other, the ‘Quebec problem’ seems irresolvable. One dimension is constantly overlooked in this debate: territorial identity. Territorially–based cultural claims emerge in the core of urban Quebec under the leadership of partitionist and localist movements. Originally based in Montreal, the partitionist movement is driven by Anglo–Que´be´cois claims over local municipalities and certain parcels of the territory in the event of an independent Quebec. This paper seeks to understand a dual reterritorialisation process: 1) state territorial rescaling policies such as decentralisation and metropolitan reform, and 2) the use of territorial claims underpinning social mobilisation strategies. When state territorial restructuring policies do not correspond with the local territorial political culture, as I argue in the case of a ‘frontier–city’ like Montreal, it spurs the activation of strategic territorialisation. This paper begins with an analysis of Montreal’s territorial political culture, rooted in the coexistence of opposite territorial myths and a common feeling of distinctiveness. Then follows a discussion of strategic territorialisation and the poly–scalar nature of such mobilisation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale GeografieSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207