Bibliographic record
Abstract
With this issue, JCR/REC'S Point - Counterpoint feature wishes to counter the brief mass media clips that so often tend to sensationalize and distort. Matthew Barrett's Architects of Our Future strives for a balance between centralization in some areas and decentralization in others as part of its call for renewed federalism. Originally delivered in Calgary as a speech at the Bank of Montreal's annual meeting, it is a thoughtful text - even if it risks being better remembered, at least in the short run, more for its financial forecasts than for its insights. In the current context of fiscal restraint there inevitably will be, as the author suggests, greater cooperation between government, business, labour and universities. Sensible suggestions whether or not they are framed by constituent assemblies - can sometimes come from all four quarters.M.L.Architects of Our FutureThese are not ordinary times in Canada they are not ordinary in economic terms, and they are not ordinary in political terms. I would like to talk about the interplay of economic and political forces and the influence they are already having on the prospects for our country. I want to be frank with you. I am increasingly uneasy about our national condition.Unemployment is too high. There is a widening disparity between haves and have - nots in society. Economies in transition show only fragile growth, failing to generate sufficient wealth to maintain traditional levels of social support. Today's youth are facing the prospect of a life that is not as promising as that of their parents.It is not a comforting picture. Yet as I cast my mind back over 1995, and as I scan the landscape of these opening days of 1996, it is not these problems which rank as the highest priority, important though they certainly are. It is our national unity crisis, made right here in Canada, that looms above all else. It is my concern that if we do not confront it with vigour, if we do not make real progress toward its resolution in the next twelve months, all our other problems, challenging enough in themselves, will become worse by orders of magnitude.Some will say that anyone focused on the constitution is out of touch with the real, everyday concerns of Canadians. We hear that everyone is fed up, frustrated with never - ending wrangling. Many Canadians are sceptical of anything theyhear from so - called elites and many are resistant to any use of the dreaded c - word by our leaders who should, it is said, be concentrating on jobs and the economy. And they are right, to a point. But there is more to it, I submit. Much more. Let me ask you to briefly suspend disbelief while I try to make the thankless case that far from discouraging politicians from tackling the national unity issue, we should be urging them on.Let me take you back to the night of last October 30. We all remember it - the night when Canada almost died.In a voter turnout of 90 per cent, very nearly half the people of Quebec voted to leave Canada. As the results trickled in with excruciating slowness, it was stunning to realize that we were on the brink of a crisis for which the country seemed totally unprepared. How is it possible, I wondered, that one of the most civilized and prosperous societies on the face of the planet could come so close to self - destructing?Can so many people in Quebec really believe that separation is worth losing their birthright to Canadian citizenship, and risking profound economic damage? Can so many people outside Quebec believe that while the loss of Quebec would be regrettable, its consequences wouldn't really affect them or where they live? If Quebec separates, is it certain the rest of Canada would hold together, when the dam of inertia, habit, and custom broke, and when every region and province scrambled to better its position in a Canada with radically new political dynamics? …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".