Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses the constitutional negotiations and the process of accommodation of identity-based constitutional claims in Canada. Canada is a multinational constitutional system that recognizes Aboriginal rights, protects the French language and, albeit only statutorily, recognizes Québécois national identity. In this chapter, I will explain how constitutional principles such as multinationalism and the obligation to negotiate in good faith with sub-state national groups have shaped the Canadian constitutional system. The chapter will show the effect that a rigid constitutional system might have in the development of a multinational polity. In particular, I will discuss the overlapping effects of three drivers of change. The first driver of change is the role played by Quebec nationalism as a stimulus of constitutional change. The Supreme Court has instead incrementally developed a series of constitutional principles aimed at accommodating the Indigenous Peoples of Canada’s demands and Quebec nationalist aspirations. The term ‘Indigenous Peoples of Canada’ is used in this chapter in a way that includes three very distinct, internally complex identity groups, which are the Metis, Inuit and American Indians. The last driver of change analyses the effects of rigid constitutional amendment procedures. The chapter is divided into three sections and is preceded by an introduction and followed by a conclusion. The introduction discusses the historical and political events that altered the Canadian constitutional system. The three sections that follow the introduction explain the three elements (Quebec nationalism, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the rigid constitution) that affect the process of the accommodation of identity-based claims in Canada. The conclusion reflects on the narratives discussed throughout the chapter.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".