Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the changing patterns of intergovernmental relations among political elites toward sensitive constitutional issues implicated in the Quebec sovereignty movement, in particular after the 1995 referendum on Quebec sovereignty-association. It extends David Thomas' concept of constitutional "abeyances" to suggest that areas of constitutional ambiguity over which there are strong enough disagreements to lead to a national breakup can be successfully managed given enough political will. This depends on their being enough political actors who otherwise share a common interest in national unity willing to keep abeyances from escalating into a crisis. The exposure and politicization of such abeyances in the middle of the 20th century raised the salience of constitutional disagreements in Canada nearly to the point of national disintegration. The decline in the salience of these abeyances and the waning of support for sovereignty in Quebec since the last referendum has reduced this possibility substantially. Using a mixed method approach within an historical institutionalist framework, this dissertation argues that, along with other social forces, this is partially explicable in light of the fact actors such as the courts, federalist political leaders, and their parties have been willing to avoid discussing sensitive constitutional abeyances and leave them unresolved in the interests of avoiding a constitutional crisis. This has certainly not resulted in end of the sovereignty movement in Quebec, which remains very much alive. However, along with other political and social forces the willingness to keep deep constitutional disagreements camouflaged has permitted Canadian federalism to regain a measure of stability.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".