Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the impact of the “Quebec factor” on Canada–France bilateral relations. Since the Quiet Revolution (“Revolution Tranquille”), French Canadians have regarded Quebec provincial institutions as a tool to promote their specific national interests in Canada and abroad. In mid-1960s, Quebec established “special partnership” with France; at the same time, Paris started regarding French-speaking Canadian province as a privileged partner. It caused problems for the Canadian Federal Government which sought good relations with France and made all efforts to neutralize Quebec’s attempts to involve Paris in federal-provincial conflicts. The situation reached its peak during two Quebec referendums on Sovereignty (1980 and 1995). The main part of the paper focuses on the Canada–France relations in 2000–2015. It shows the change of traditional French position toward the Quebec independentist movement under Nicolas Sarkozy, who chose to neglect “ni-ni” formula and openly supported Canadian unity. It also analyses the reasons of this decision and stresses the role of close personal ties between Sarkozy and French Canadian multimillionaire Paul Desmarais, a powerful and uncompromising opponent of separatists. The paper shows the negative reaction on Sarkozy’s new approach in Quebec (and not only among separatists). It looks into the attitude of François Holland’s administration, which, on the one hand, returned to the “ni-ni” formula, but on the other hand, succeeded in establishing close relations with the Canadian Federal Government. It concludes that Quebec factor will continue to influence Canada–France relations despite the decline of the separatist movement, because Quebec will further develop its identity paradiplomacy thus stressing its specificity within the framework of the Canadian Federation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".