Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter seeks to analyse cooperative federalism from the point of view of the Relationship between Quebec and the Canadian constitution. Cooperative federalism transfers a focus on boundaries to a focus on effectiveness and is often seen as a renewed version of classical or dualist federalism. Yet Quebec has been traditionnally sceptic about it. Drawing on Jean Beetz' insights, the first part of this paper will discuss how this scepticism has been fuelled by perceived threats from more functionalist approaches to federalism, including those that value efficiency over formal respect of “territorial” division of powers lines. The second part will draw a portrait of cooperative federalism in Canada by looking at both executive cooperative federalism and judicially-crafted 'cooperative' federalism, which is frequent in division of powers cases, but which paradoxically does not rely on any evidence of cooperation. The third part of this chapter will return to Quebec’s attitudes towards cooperative federalism by looking at two recent Quebec-Canada cases. In the end, I conclude that even though both judicial and executive cooperative federalism have permeated the legal discourse, dualist federalism has not collapsed. Paradoxically, those limits also serve to neutralize any remaining scepticism towards cooperative federalism on the part of Quebec. The conclusion seeks to evince cooperative federalism's limited, often instrumentalized, and almost rhetorical role and invite critical reflection on what lies ahead for cooperative federalism.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".