Die konvergierende Entwicklung von Staat und ethnolinguistischer Mehrheit in Frankreich, Deutschland, Kanada und Spanien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Convergent Development of the State and the Ethnolinguistic Majorities in France, Germany, Canada and Spain Civic and ethnic nationalisms are merely abstract theoretical models that help us to understand the actions, reactions and claims of ethnolinguistic groups against the background of identity conflicts in a multinational state rather than fixed givens to describe either majority or minority groups in an essentialist fashion. This article deals with the relation between these two ideal types and the grey area between them. It questions the civic foundations of four Western nation-states that are commonly seen as modern archetypes of popular sovereignty, and aims to demonstrate the convergence of state institutions with the interests of ethnolinguistic majorities in their respective nation-building processes. The article addresses first the theoretical underpinning of the civic-ethnic debate in political science, while special attention will be given to unequal power relationships between majorities and minorities. It goes on to talk about the practical consequences of this relationship for historical minorities in different state contexts: first in the French unitary state, then in Germany, Canada and Spain, three countries with distinctive federal structures, although Germany significantly differs from the other two,since the federal state structure never played a role in empowering national minorities, as the case of the Lusatian Sorbs illustrates. Nevertheless, as in France and Germany, national majorities’ claims to hegemony remain one of the main challenges for historical minorities in Canada and Spain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".