Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In December 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau claimed in The New York Times Magazine that Canada was ‘the first postnational state’, adding that there was ‘no core identity, no mainstream in Canada’. What does this notion of ‘postnationalism’ exactly encompass? And why did Justin Trudeau choose to use it instead of the more traditional term ‘multiculturalism’? This article contends that the notion of postnationalism is a rhetorical fallacy that conceals the rich distinctiveness of the Canadian identity, while denying the multiple and fierce claims for sovereignty that are observable nationwide. Beyond the merely anecdotal character of Trudeau’s assertion, this postnational claim should be contextualized within a rich field of enquiry concerned with transnational social relations, and the impact that these new cultural practices and social relationships have on forms of belonging and governance. This article argues that ‘postnational’ does not seem to be the right terminology to designate Canada’s contemporary ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural diversity. Beyond the dated mosaic label, and the chimeric postnational one, the inclusive terms ‘plurinationalism’, which continues to emphasize diversity along the vector of the nation, and ‘multiversality’, which underscore the diversity of vectors of difference, would arguably constitute more pertinent descriptions takes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".