Nationalism and Trade Liberalization in Quebec and Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I n this paper, we explore how nationalism in Taiwan and Quebec has been affected by trade liberalization.' In particular, we explore the way in which political, business and intellectual elites have used trade liberalization to shape nationalist agendas. In Taiwan, the economic reform of the mainland has increased the interdependence of the Taiwanese economy with the Chinese mainland and reduced the maneuverability of nationalist forces to further the pursuit of political autonomy. Hence, Taiwanese leaders have used nationalism to search for an acceptable political discourse that accommodates the identity of the people in the context of regional autonomy and the claims of the mainland government to protect Taiwanese interests through constitutional guarantees. In Quebec, on the other hand, nationalists have viewed the liberalization of free trade as a means of furthering an independence agenda while weakening constitutional approaches that have heretofore dominated the Canadian political landscape. Hence, efforts at constitutional reform, which were previously accommodated by nationalist forces because of the reluctance of the majority of Quebecois to vote for outright independence, have been influenced by an appeal to free trade. While the study makes it clear that Quebec and Taiwan are different in fundamental ways, we also think they are comparable in some respects. One fundamental difference is that Quebec is defacto and dejure a part of Canada whereas Taiwan's case is more complex; it has not been a part of the Chinese mainland in any meaningful way since 1895. Furthermore, while Quebec may be viewed as a classic case of secessionism,2 the struggle over Taiwan is
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".