Starting the constitutional process in a plurinational context: Comparative study of the governments of Catalonia and Quebec about the start-up of the constitutional review procedure of their State = Initier le processus constituant en contexte plurinational - Étude comparative des pouvoirs catalans et québécois de mettre en branle de la procédure de révision constitutionnelle de leur État
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initiative for constitutional amendment is the entry to the constituent process. Its importance is one of fundamental nature, more so in a multinational State. Indeed, in such a context, the various segments of a fragmented society should all be able to initiate the constitutional process, this ability then being synonymous with an ability to initiate a dialogue between nations. Spain and Canada are both examples of multinational States in which we find a rigid Constitution with defined mechanisms of constitutional initiative. Comparison of these initiative procedures will highlight the ways in which the Canadian and Spanish States either respect the spirit of the constituent pact or rationalize its effects, with the consequences of directly impacting the constitutional initiative power in Quebec and in Catalonia. More globally, this research will also put in perspective the position of the Canadian and Spanish political elites about the initiative of the constitutional revision in the broader context of their consideration of minority nations claims within the multinational State.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".