Ratifying a Post-Referendum Agreement on Quebec Sovereignty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If the sovereigntists win another referendum in Quebec, the terms of Quebec’s accession to sovereignty should be negotiated and ratified under the existing rules for amending the Canadian Constitution, despite some sovereigntists’ objections that Quebec need not abide by the terms of the Constitution Act, 1982, which it has never ratified. Any other process, however, is likely to lead to more chaos and disruption than would otherwise occur.A sovereignty agreement could include constitutional changes that fall into some or all of five categories: constitutional amendments terminating the authority of existing federal and provincial institutions over the territory and people of Quebec; constitutional and statutory amendments to make remaining federal institutions workable in the short term; provisions, constitutional or otherwise, for any new links established between Quebec and Canada; new treaties, or a commitment to negotiate them, among Aboriginal peoples, Quebec, and Canada; and nonconstitutional items to be implemented by legislation, executive orders, or treaties.
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 | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".