Fédéralisme en Belgique et au Canada : Parallèles, dissonances et paradoxes (Federalism in Belgium and Canada: Parallels, Dissonance and Paradoxes)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Cet article propose une breve comparaison entre les systemes federaux belge et canadien. Son but est de comparer la facon dont les federations belge et canadienne resolvent la tension entre la dualite culturelle/linguistique (bipolarite) et les institutions plus eclatees (multipolarite). L’auteure offre un bref rappel des realites geographiques et demographiques de deux Etats. Malgre leurs apparentes diversites, les « pactes federaux » de ces deux federations ont ete elabores entre les deux groupes linguistiques/culturels consideres, alors, comme principaux. Cependant, le rapport de force entre les deux groupes principaux n’est pas le meme dans les deux pays. Dans les deux federations, la minorite francophone jouit d’un degre de protection certain, notamment par le biais de la reconnaissance de leur langue comme langue officielle, et de la representation au sein des instances federales. Ces garanties sont toutefois davantage « betonnees » et ont plus de force juridique en Belgique - puisqu’elles faconnent les institutions-memes - que ce n’est le cas au Canada. En dernier lieu, l’auteure offre une revue des structures favorisant la multipolarite dans les deux pays. Malgre une multiplicite d’entites federees, le regime federal belge est foncierement bipolaire, avec des tendances de confederalisme. Les enjeux, tensions et poles d’interet au Canada sont plus varies. Le droit canadien offre des garanties non-negligeables aux minorites francophones et anglophones, mais n’a pas traduit ces preoccupations dans l’edifice federal. La tension entre « bipolarite » et « multipolarite » se resout donc de maniere distincte au Canada et en Belgique. L’auteure conclut en notant que malgre l’echec des reformes constitutionnelles au Canada, l’exemple belge demontre que les institutions ne sont pas sacrees et qu’elles sont susceptibles de transformations. Paradoxalement, toutefois, l’experience belge illustre egalement que les institutions peuvent fossiliser les identites et generer des tensions, en polarisant les positions politiques.English Abstract: This article intends to offer a comparison between the Belgian and Canadian federations. It aims to compare the way both federations resolve tensions between linguistic/cultural duality (i.e. bipolarity) and more “scattered institutions” (i.e. multi-polarity). The author starts her analysis by reviewing the different geographic realities of both federal systems. Despite their diversity, both countries’ “federal pacts” were elaborated between the “main” cultural/linguistic groups. However, the power struggles between these groups is not the same in both contexts. In both federations, the Francophone minority is protected through the recognition of French as an official language and mechanisms of representation in federal institutions. These guarantees are more permanent and “set in stone” in Belgium than in Canada, therefore having a binding effect. Moreover, they have considerably shaped Belgian institutions. In the last part, the author reviews the institutions and structures that have favored multi-polarity in both federal systems. Despite a multiplicity of federal entities, the Belgian federation is strongly bipolar, with some tendencies towards confederalism. In the Canadian case, issues and tensions are more diverse. Canadian law offers non-negligible guaranties to Francophone and Anglophone minorities, but has not translated these realities into federal institutions. In sum, the bipolarity/multi-polarity tension is resolved differently in Canada and in Belgium. Despite the failure of any constitutional reforms in Canada since 1982, the Belgian case demonstrates that institutions are malleable and should not be considered “sacred”. Ironically however, the Belgian case also illustrates how institutions may fossilize identities and generate tensions by additionally polarizing political positions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".