MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910945756 · doi:10.15290/pss.2018.32.03

Kanadyjska polityka tożsamościowa

2018· article· pl· W2910945756 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Walter Żelazny

Bibliographic record

VenuePogranicze Studia Społeczne · 2018
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolish Legal and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to present how the French in Canada preserved their cultural and linguistic identity and distinguished themselves from the English in North America which none of the European colonies at the time, not even socially and economically wellorganized New Netherland were able to maintain their independence. Francophones also managed to prove that nowadays the French play the indispensable and dominant role in building Canada’s identity. Today the provinces can have their own language program providing it complies with the federal policy of bilingualism. In 1976 during Révolution tranquille Quebec passed Loi 101 where French is declared its sole official language. Therefore the province introduced the language policy which was contrary to the Canadian constitution. These are the most important differences that set Canada apart from the United States. This also explains complex nature of Canadian language policies based on equal status of the two official languages in the institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada and also both successful and unsuccessful attempts to establish language policy in the Canadian provinces.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.320 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePogranicze Studia SpołeczneSame topicPolish Legal and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207