Thinking Canada (with or without Quebec) and Thinking Belgium (with or without Flanders): The Future of Federalism through the Eyes of their Citizens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1960, both Canada and Belgium have experienced passionate debates about the future of federalism in their country. While the debate has somewhat declined in Canada in general and in Quebec in particular, it is currently very hot in Belgium. However, both federations share a common goal – accommodating within a single country two national communities – which enables a fruitful comparison of the way one can think Canada with or without Quebec and Belgium with or without Flanders. More specifically it is interesting to look comparatively at the place of Quebec and of Flanders in their respective federation. It can be done through the eyes of Quebeckers and Flemish but also through the eyes of citizens from the other community: English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Belgians. Relying on qualitative date collected in Quebec, Ontario, Flanders and Wallonia, this paper aims at illuminating the identity and the federal dynamics in Canada and Belgium from below – the citizens – rather than from the top – institutions or political actors. While institutions and political actors do matter, citizens play also an important role in thinking their country and the place of their region within or without it.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".