Federalism, Pluralism, and Constitutional Faith: Canada in Question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolL’auteur se penche sur les visions politiques de John A. Macdonald et de Pierre Elliott Trudeau. En effet, pour la plupart des Canadiens, ces deux hommes ont ete les seuls a definir avec succes l’essence meme du pays. Pourtant, le Canada s’est transforme en un pays, pour ainsi dire, impossible a gouverner. Si rien ne change, le Canada est voue a la fragmentation et sera compose de solitudes culturelles antagonistes. Pour LaSelva, le Quebec aussi est voue a ce destin du fait qu’il est compose d’importantes minorites, de nations autochtones, de groupes multiculturels et d’une large population anglophone. Alors, comment reconcilier les differences? En faisant place a une vision politique aussi vieille que la Confederation: celle de Georges-Etienne Cartier EnglishThe author examines the political visions of John A. Macdonald and Pierre Elliott Trudeau. In reality, for the majority of Canadians, these two men were the only ones to successfully define the very essence of the country. Yet, Canada transformed itself into a country that is, so to speak, impossible to govern. If nothing changes, Canada is destined to be fragmented and will be made up of antagonistic cultural solitudes. For LaSelva, Quebec is also destined for that fate because it is made up of significant minorities, Aboriginal nations, multicultural groups and large Anglophone population. So, how to reconcile the differences? By making way for a political vision as old as Confederation: that of Georges-Etienne Cartier
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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".