Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis attempts to examine the relations between federalism and nationalism from the perspectives of political elites in Ottawa and Quebec. Confronted with a perennial siege mentality fostered by the predominance of the English language in Canada, Quebecois nationalism is essentially a quest for the survival of the French tongue, which has taken a pro-active form since 1960s in the sovereignty movement led by the Parti Quebecois and in the pursuit of renewed federalism championed by the Parti liberal du Quebec. In response, the federal government has tried to accommodate Quebec’s needs for linguistic equality and autonomy by adopting bilingualism and a more decentralized form of federalism. But the approach chosen by Ottawa lays too much emphasis on symmetrical federalism to the extent of disregarding Quebec’s distinctiveness. Besides, the constitutionally entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the aim of ensuring that all Canadian citizens are equal, has further strengthened the idea that the provinces they inhabit should be treated in an identical manner. However, Quebec has long seen itself as a founding nation and is thus entitled to enjoy asymmetrical federal arrangements or at least a special status in Canada. In general, due to different conceptions of the Canadian nation and federation, Ottawa and Quebec have respectively turned to nationalist strategies to fulfil their ideals of political and cultural units. The conflict between these two nation-building projects can be subsumed under two components. Firstly, although an important degree of decentralization has worked to the benefits of Quebec’s nationalist demands, the uniformity principle in terms of power division among provinces is suspected of an intention on the part of the federal government to undermine rather than respect the distinct nature of Quebec. Secondly, the fact that Ottawa refuses to constitutionally recognize Quebec as a nation or a distinct society has less to do with a contradiction between individual versus collective rights, but with different traditions of liberalism. In accordance with procedural liberalism, the English-speaking Canada believes that human dignity can only be achieved when an individual has the freedom to choose what he or she sees best without being held hostage by pre-determined cultural ties. This is not only the goal of the Canadian Charter, but the reason why the language is made a matter of individual rather than a collective right. However, given the precarious position of the French language and its importance in sustaining Quebec national identity, Quebec subscribes to substantive liberalism, viewing communitarian identification a prerequisite for human dignity, which explains the necessity of the French Charter and its unilingual approach. In conclusion, to surmount the conflicting views of liberalism, it is important to allow for national recognition of Quebec and the co-existence of different layers of national identities so as to better reflect the deep diversity within the Canadian multinational society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".