MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738323090

Searching for Multinational Canada: The Rhetoric of Confusion

2001· article· fr· W2738323090 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan C. Cairns

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d'études constitutionnelles · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSolidarityPolitical scienceNeutralityRhetoricSociologyLawPoliticsPhilosophyTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EnglishThe phrase has recently emerged in scholarly analysis, in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and elsewhere as a label for a claimed sociological reality that deserves constitutional recognition. Unfortunately, the phrase has acquired a certain legitimacy before its credentials have received the scrutiny that should be accorded all future visions. This article undertakes that task. It concludes that a full-blown is conceptually incoherent and has limited utility for policy-makers. Any comprehensive attempt to redesign Canada as a multinational polity would come with a heavy price tag. Most significantly, the civic solidarity we now share with fellow citizens would be replaced by a much weaker solidarity with the members of other nations, now viewed as quasi-strangers. The members of Aboriginal nations would be the major losers. While a full-blown response to multinational Canada would be unwise, a carefully modulated, less ambitious response deserves consideration. francaisL’expression «Canada multinational» est recemment apparue dans une analyse scientifique, dans le rapport de la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones et ailleurs comme une etiquette d’une soi-disant realite sociologique digne d’une reconnaissance constitutionnelle. Malheureusement, l’expression a acquis une certaine legitimite avant meme que ses pouvoirs n’aient fait l’objet de l’etude minutieuse qui devrait etre accordee a toutes les visions futures. L’article porte justement sur cette tâche. L’auteur conclut que l’expression «Canada multinational» est incoherente du point de vue conceptuel et qu’elle presente peu d’utilite pour les responsables des politiques. Toute tentative generale de revoir le Canada en tant que politie multinationale s’avererait onereuse. Tout d’abord, la solidarite civique que nous partageons avec nos concitoyens serait remplacee par une solidarite plus faible avec des membres d’autres nations que nous considerons aujourd’hui comme quasi- etrangeres. Les membres des nations autochtones auraient le plus a perdre. Alors qu’une reaction complete a un Canada multinational n’est pas indiquee, une reaction soigneusement modulee et moins audacieuse merite consideration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d'études constitutionnellesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207