Algunos de los desafíos legales y políticos que debe afrontar el movimiento de independencia de Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El movimiento secesionista de Quebec, uno de los más antiguos de ese tipo en un país democrático, continúa suscitando interés en otras partes del mundo. Pero este movimiento actualmente se enfrenta importantes desafíos. El objetivo principal de este artículo es de proporcionar a sus lectores una visión general de algunos de los principales obstáculos políticos y legales que afronta en la actualidad el movimiento independentista de Quebec. El primero obstáculo se debe poner en relación con el marco legal aplicable al intento de secesión provincial desde la decisión de 1998, del Tribunal Supremo de Canadá en la Reference re Secession of Quebec. El segundo se encuentra en el impacto potencial del proceso del reciente referéndum en Escocia sobre la estrategia del movimiento secesionista de Quebec. El tercero se creó como consecuencia de la división interna de este movimiento. Por último, se estudia una nueva pretendida base legal para reivindicar la secesión, es decir, el denominado «derecho a decidir», en tanto distinto del derecho a la auto-determinación externa.Quebec’s secessionist movement is one of the oldest of the sort in any democratic country. This paper seeks to provide an overview of some of the main political and legal hurdles currently faced by the Quebec independence movement. First it revisits the domestic legal framework applicable to a provincial secession attempt since the seminal 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Secession of Quebec, which was a major game changer in the debate over Quebec’s potential secession. Then it examines the potential impact of recent political events, as the Scotland’s recent referendum process, on the strategy of the Quebec secessionist movement. And last it looks at an alleged new legal foundation for secession, i.e. a so-called “right to decide” distinct from the right to external self-determination.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".