Interpreting National Trajectories with Gellner, Anderson and Smith: The Case of Quebec
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith have had a significant \ninfluence in debates and theoretical discussions concerning the understanding of nations \nand nationalism. However, one should not accept such classic theories ipso facto without \nquestioning their theoretical assumptions. Hence, we find that one way to better understand \nthe way these theories are still relevant (or not) for the understanding of nations and nationalism \nis to confront their explanatory potential with a specific case. This is precisely the \nmain objective, and therefore contribution, of this paper. We thus focus on a “problematic” or \n“abnormal” case relative to a more general understanding of what a nation and nationalism \nought to be. We look at the Canadian province of Quebec, a minority nation that possesses \nits own independent institutional and societal culture, while evolving within a more encompassing \nsovereign state — the Canadian federation. Our goal is less to provide an exhaustive \naccount of socio-historical settings than to use Gellner, Anderson and Smith’s theories to \nprovide a fair interpretation of the way Quebec has evolved as a minority nation within the \nCanadian federation. To our knowledge, no other study has applied a similar framework — \nthese theories of nationalism and their testing — to the Quebec case.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it