Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issues of the right to self-determination, independence, separatist sentiments never lose their relevance. Against the background of intensified religious, linguistic and ethnic clashes in various multireligious and multiethnic States of the world, federal states that historically faced the struggle for independence on their territory are of particular interest. Canada has extensive experience in the development of the federation in conflict with one of the provinces – Québec. To date, the federal center has developed a fairly successful model of relations with the French-speaking province, but separatist sentiments remain a constant factor in the federal process in Canada. For centuries, the question of obtaining sovereignty of Québec somehow arises in the process of developing intergovernmental relations between the federal authorities and the province, as well as in the process of political struggle at the regional level. This article analyzes the historical aspects of the emergence of separatist sentiments in Québec, the development of the idea of independence in the modern society of the province, as well as the evolution of relations between the federal center and the government of Québec in the process of regulating the secession problem. The study of intergovernmental relations between Canada and the province of Québec seeks to show that such a sensitive issue as secession may be resolved if there is political will on the part of both the Federation and the region, as well as the desire to take concrete political, economic and legal steps and to come to a compromise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".