Un poids décisif? L’influence du Québec sur les interventions militaires canadiennes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parmi les débats les plus persistants dans l’étude de la politique étrangère et de sécurité du Canada se trouve l’influence du Québec sur son élaboration et son exécution. Certains estiment que la minorité nationale francophone jouit d’une influence disproportionnée, alors que d’autres jugent plutôt que les valeurs et les intérêts du Québec sont marginalisés. Qu’en est-il exactement ? Cet article offre une analyse contrefactuelle de la question en s’attardant plus spécifiquement à la participation militaire canadienne aux coalitions d’États volontaires dirigées par les États-Unis. Nous examinons deux études de cas qui ont largement dominé les relations canado-américaines contemporaines, c’est-à-dire la guerre en Afghanistan et l’invasion anglo-américaine de l’Irak. Il ressort de notre analyse que, si le Québec peut se vanter de sa spécificité en matière de sécurité internationale, il est loin d’être avéré qu’une fédération canadienne sans le Québec aurait adopté des positions fondamentalement différentes de celles qui furent adoptées.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".