Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquest article analitza les formes de legitimació del federalisme canadenc\nen relació amb la noció rawlsiana del consens solapat, aplicada al federalisme\nper Wayne Norman. A partir dels treballs de Dimitrios Karmis i Alain-G.\nGagnon, es presenta una tipologia de tres federalismes: universalista, comunitarista\ni utilitarista, que són sotmesos a discussió amb relació a la situació\nconstitucional posterior a la repatriació del 1982 i al model de Trudeau.\nAquestes tres maneres d’entendre el federalisme s’apliquen posteriorment\na l’estudi de casos de les polítiques d’immigració i la seva descentralització.\nMitjançant l’exemple d’aquestes polítiques, l’article demostra que, si bé des\ndel punt de vista constitucional hi ha una manca de consens solapat, certs\naspectes que formaven part de les reformes fallides del Llac Meech (1988)\ni Charlottetown (1992) han estat rescatats fora de la Constitució. Aquesta\nsituació permet concloure que la federació canadenca té un modus vivendi\nque permet el funcionament institucional, però que queda lluny de satisfer\nel consens solapat que només s’assoliria a partir d’un pacte multinacional.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".