Competing national visions: Canada–Quebec relations in a comparative perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: strains and tensions in multinational federations Towards the end of 1787 John Jay defended the new constitution of the United States in the following way: Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs … who … have nobly established their general liberty and independence. (Jay No. 2. 1961 [1788], p. 38) The long search for ‘republican remedies’ to the evident malaise of the Articles of Confederation led ultimately to federation, social pluralism and constitutionalism. But it is clear from a close analysis of the Federalist Papers that the enduring expression of the principles of constitutionalism which underpinned the new federal political system with such clarity and force were not constructed with a view to reconciling different nationalist demands. The constituent states of the young federation were not inhabited by people of different language, race and culture but by people of the same language, race and culture. The first case in which the decision to create a modern federal rather than a unitary form of government was determined mainly by the desire successfully to accommodate distinct nationalist differences was the Canadian constitution established by the British North America Act (now the Constitution Act) in 1867.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".