MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150942480 · doi:10.3138/jcs.45.2.76

Building Solidarity: Or, Fighting our Way towards a Better Country

2011· article· en· W2150942480 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrew Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatriotismSolidaritySociologyDemocracyContext (archaeology)Diversity (politics)EpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceLawPoliticsAnthropologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The essay makes a contribution to the theory of patriotism by advancing a set of insights addressing the problem of pan-national belonging and solidarity in the Canadian context. It draws on the work of philosopher Charles Taylor, who has written extensively on the topic but whose ideas have been inconsistently received. The first part of the essay reviews some of his better-known concepts on Canadian diversity as linked to the national unity debate. The second and third parts draw on less-well-known aspects of Taylor’s thought linking patriot-ism to the organic social unity that arises from participation in civil society. The author thus moves beyond approaches that view problems of national belonging solely from the perspective of cultural diversity to offer a broader picture of the means through which an engaged citizenry can be understood to take root. This expanded view includes a focus on the integrative effects of small-scale co-operation and an emphasis on the specifically democratic form of patriotism that is manifest in partisan social conflict.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.048
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207