MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2807562413

Fédéralisme Coopératif et Droits Linguistiques AU Canada: Peut-On « Contractualiser » Le Droit des Minorités? (Cooperative Federalism and Linguistic Rights in Canada: Can We 'Contractualize' Minority Rights?)

2017· article· fr· W2807562413 on OpenAlexaffabout
Johanne Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesEthnologyPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

French Abstract: Peut-on reellement contractualiser les droits linguistiques ? Cette question en appelle, en filigrane, deux autres, plus precises : « peut-on bonifier les droits par la voie contractuelle ? », et de maniere plus cruciale, sans doute, « peut-on porter atteinte a ces droits par voie contractuelle ? » Le present chapitre aborde ces questions, en procedant en trois temps. Une premiere partie survole les sources de droits linguistiques au Canada et trace un portrait de la pratique des ententes intergouvernementales relatives aux droits linguistiques. Une seconde partie analyse le role que remplissent ces ententes dans la « bonification » ou la concretisation des droits linguistiques. Enfin, une troisieme explore le risque que les gouvernements puissent, par le truchement d’ententes intergouvernementales, reduire les droits linguistiques, soit deliberement, soit « par inadvertance ». La conclusion soulignera la necessite d’une vigilance constante des groupes de defense des droits et des minorites linguistiques face aux effets souvent imprevus (mais sans doute previsibles) des mecanismes cooperatifs echafaudes par les gouvernements. English Abstract: rights (linguistic or otherwise) be “contractualised”? This question leads to two other, more specific, ones: Can language rights be improved by contract?” and, perhaps more crucially, can these rights be abridged by contract? This paper proceeds to tackle these issues in three parts. The first looks at sources of linguistic rights in Canada and provides a portrait of the practice of intergovernmental agreements related to the implementation of these rights. A second part analyzes the role that these agreements play in “improving” linguistic rights. Finally, the third part explores the risk that governments may, through intergovernmental cooperation, limit the scope of linguistic protection, either deliberately or inadvertently. The conclusion underscores the need for continued vigilance by advocacy groups and linguistic minorities over the often unforeseen (but probably predictable) effects of cooperative mechanisms developed by governments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicPolitical Systems and Governance→French-language works237,207→