MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996427775 · doi:10.3138/chr.2019-0007

« Ma chicane avec l’impôt » : une critique traditionaliste de l’État-providence canadien, 1945–57

2019· article· fr· W2996427775 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean-Philippe Carlos

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article analyse les stratégies de résistance mises en place par les intellectuels traditionalistes canadiens-français à l’endroit du projet d’édification de l’État-providence canadien, de la fin des années 1940 à la fin des années 1950. Pour ce faire, nous avons analysé les stratégies politiques, juridiques et médiatiques mises de l’avant par François-Albert Angers (1909–2003) dans sa lutte contre le gouvernement fédéral canadien. Économiste de formation, universitaire et animateur influent des réseaux nationalistes du Québec, Angers a notamment mené une lutte judiciaire contre le ministère du Revenu national durant près d’une décennie (1947–57). À travers cette saga reposant sur la constitutionnalité des allocations familiales, nous analysons également certains thèmes centraux du discours traditionaliste, en lien avec les questions du fédéralisme, du respect des droits civils et de la conception catholique de la vie en société. Cet étude vise ainsi à lever le voile sur la manière dont les penseurs conservateurs du Québec ont réagi à l’avènement d’un État canadien moderne et interventionniste au lendemain de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0280.038
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207