Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to focus on alternative ways of perceiving the same reality: The actions taken by the FLQ and the authorities during the October 1970 crisis. Among the abundant literature that was published during and after the crisis and often with strong emotional overtones, two main attempts of explanation have emerged: 1) One trying to describe the actions chosen, as the more or less purposive acts of unified institutions or groups (the FLQ, the Authorities) and which is often found among either English Canadian commentators or close sources to the Government; 2) The other one attempting to relate the chosen actions, as the resultant of various bargaining games among players in the institutions or groups (the intellectuals, the activists, in the case of the FLQ, Quebec, Ottawa and Montreal in the case of the Government) and which is often found among proponents of the New Left or Quebec Independentists. Two aspects of the crisis however, have largely been ignored or neglected: The role of the information units and the role of the implementation units in the shaping of Government decisions, except in rare cases and only to deplore their inefficiency or their prejudices. Given this background, we propose to focus our attention on five main questions: How can the actions of the FLQ and of the authorities be explained in the context of a unitary and comprehensively rational actor perspective? How can the actions of the FLQ and of the authorities be explained in the context of a unitary and boundedly rational actor perspective? - How can the actions of the authorities be explained, as being the output of multiple, boundedly rational, separate information units? How can the outcome resulting from the authorities' chosen action be explained as the output of multiple, boundedly rational, separate implementation units? How can the actions of the FLQ and of the authorities be explained, as the resultant of the bargaining process taking place among multiple, boundedly rational, separate decision units? In trying to answer those questions, we will draw heavily on the work of Graham Allison (Essence of Decision, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1971), whose methodology and terminology will be used abundantly as far as the basic concepts are concerned. In many cases, as we have not got any access to "internal" information, we will try to reconstitute the decision processes from the evidence at hand, hypothesizing the developments that have taken place. This same limitation (the lack of internal information), will lead us to concentrate mostly on the repetitive character of bounded behaviour and to search for antecedents among past actions. In doing so, we hope to minimize our own prejudices and contribute to the understanding of a crisis which has appeared to many as a turning point in Canadian history.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".