An Austrian Solution for Canada? Problems and Possibilities of National Cultural Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Over the last few decades, non-territorial forms of national self-government have attracted increasing interest in political science, especially in the guise of national cultural autonomy. National cultural autonomy is a model of self-government that was pioneered by Austrian theorists and politicians Karl Renner and Otto Bauer in the waning days of the Habsburg Empire, yet was never implemented in Austria–Hungary. This paper will examine some of the problems and possibilities that may attend a transfer of national cultural autonomy as a model of self-government into Canadian political discourse, especially as regards Quebec nationalism, Francophone communities outside Quebec, Anglophone Quebecers, self-government for Aboriginal peoples, and political values in English-speaking Canada. Résumé. Au cours des dernières décennies, les formes non territoriales d'autonomie gouvernementale nationale ont fait l'objet d'un intérêt croissant en science politique, en particulier le concept de l'autonomie culturelle nationale. L'autonomie culturelle nationale est un modèle autonomiste développé par les théoriciens et politiciens autrichiens Karl Renner et Otto Bauer lors du déclin de l'Empire habsbourgeois, mais qui ne fut jamais mis en place dans l'Empire austro-hongrois. Cet article examinera quelques-uns des problèmes et quelques-unes des possibilités qui pourraient émerger d'un transfert de ce modèle dans le discours politique canadien sur l'autonomie gouvernementale, en particulier en ce qui a trait au nationalisme québécois, aux communautés francophones situées à l'extérieur du Québec, aux Québécois anglophones, à l'autonomie gouvernementale des peuples autochtones et aux valeurs politiques du Canada anglais.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".