Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".