Bibliographic record
Abstract
As seen in Chapter 4, Quebec is indeed engaged in the fight for ‘world cultural and linguistic diversity’ to which the Larose Commission refers above, one that has most recently taken the form of supporting UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, with a view to protecting its own (Francophone) cultural heritage in the world order. In reality, the UNESCO Convention is more attuned to the protection of endangered indigenous cultures such those of Quebec’s Aboriginal peoples, and the Larose Commission cited above is right to underline the global importance of protecting Quebec’s indigenous cultural and linguistic heritage. But while this part of the quotation is unambiguous, the assertion that ‘it is essential to continue to recognise that the Amerindian and Inuit nations have helped fashion the Quebec soul and that their members are fully-fledged citizens of Quebec’ is less clear. This is not a simple declaration that Aboriginal people are recognised by the state as ‘fully-fledged citizens’. The value judgement in ‘it is essential’, combined with the fact that recognition has to be reiterated or continually affirmed, points to the Commission’s awareness of the complications involved in including Aboriginal people within the civic model of citizenship that it is promoting. More precisely, the Commission’s position has to be understood in terms of the racism of past neglect and discrimination with regard to Aboriginal people that is the legacy of Quebec and Western settler states in general.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.006 |
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".