Bibliographic record
Abstract
Québec has been structuring and promoting a social economy sector since the mid-1990s. What explains this specificity of the Québec social model? Careful process tracing analysis reveals that the mobilization of Québec’s left in the mid-1990s, followed by coalition engineering during the 1996 economy and employment summit, account for Québec’s distinct trajectory. Consistent with power resource theory (PRT), at the agenda-setting stage, protagonists of Québec’s social economy policies were associated with the left. Contrary to what is assumed by PRT, however, at the decision stage, the right’s consent to social economy policies was not conditioned by a weak bargaining position or by a fear of antagonizing voters.RÉSUMÉLe Québec appuie et structure un secteur de l’économie sociale depuis le milieu des années 1990. Comment expliquer cette spécificité du modèle social québécois? Une analyse attentive du retraçage des processus révèle que la mobilisation de la gauche québécoise au milieu des années 1990, suivie d’une coalition autour de l’économie sociale formée au moment du Sommet sur l’économie et l’emploi en 1996, expliquent la trajectoire distincte du Québec. De façon cohérente avec la théorie des ressources de pouvoir (PRT), à l’étape de la mise à l’agenda, les protagonistes des politiques visant à appuyer l’économie sociale au Québec étaient associés à la gauche. Contrairement à ce qui est supposé par la PRT, cependant, à l’étape de la prise de décision, l’appui de la droite à ces politiques ne reposait pas nsur un faible rapport de force ou sur une crainte de s’aliéner les électeurs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".