MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464074636 · doi:10.1057/9780230625495_2

From French Canadian to Quebecer

2007· book-chapter· en· W2464074636 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leigh Oakes, Jane Warren

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityCitizenshipNationalismLegitimacyPolitical scienceLiberalismContext (archaeology)Political economyGender studiesSociologyLawPoliticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary debates about citizenship, like that raised by the Larose Commission cited above, are no longer about rights, as they were in the immediate postwar period, so much as the role citizenship can play in cementing social cohesion (Helly 2000: 119; Labelle and Salée 2001: 289; Beiner 2003; see also Section 1.6). Citizenship is now seen as the means of reinforcing a sense of community or solidarity that many feel has suffered since the late 1980s—early 1990s, not least as a result of the perceived excesses of globalisation: ‘A bit like if, by a swing of the pendulum, one suddenly realised that neo-liberalism had gone too far’ (Lacroix 2000: 54). While this phenomenon is witnessed around the globe, it is especially apparent in the context of Quebec, where the efforts of successive Quebec governments to create a strengthened sense of solidarity by means of a common public culture coincide with a desire to ensure the survival of a language spoken by a mere two per cent of the North American continent. The consolidation of a common public culture must be reconciled, however, with the ethnocultural diversity that characterises modern-day Quebec. The desire of the authorities to be as inclusive as possible has led to the progressive ‘de-ethnicisation’ of Quebec identity, a process which has also served to reinforce the legitimacy of the nationalist movement in this era of (neo-)liberalism (Keating 2001b: 72). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207