Protection constitutionnelle des minorités linguistiques: Un exercice-fiction de transposition du modèle fédéral belge au Canada (Constitutional Protection of Linguistic Minorities: A Hypothetical Transposition of the Belgian Model in Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le systeme federal belge est a la fois original, extremement complexe et en constante evolution. Cet article tente d’en decoder les subtilites en les « transposant » au Canada : a quoi ressemblerait la federation canadienne si elle etait non seulement divisees en unites territoriales (provinces et territoires) mais egalement en « communautes » semi-territorialisees? Une telle federation serait-elle mieux en mesure de promouvoir l’autonomie culturelle et politique au sein de cette federation multinationale? Les « communautes » pourraient-elle fournir une « voix constitutionnelle » en reconnaissant des formes de pouvoirs politiques (en sus de droits linguistiques) a la minorite francophone hors Quebec?English Abstract: The “Belgian federal model” is original, highly complex and in constant evolution. This paper seeks to explain the intricacies of the Belgian federation by “transposing” its key elements to the Canadian context. This heuristic and pedagogical exercise allows the author to reflect on the (in)adequacy of having different types of constitutive units (territorial regions and semi-personal “communities”) as a means of promoting cultural autonomy in a multinational state. In particular, the author seeks to foster discussion on various adaptations of the “communities” model as a means of giving a “constitutional voice” in the form of institutionalised power (as opposed to constitutionalised rights) to the francophone minority living outside Quebec.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".