‘Quebec Sovereignty and Indigenous Nationhoods: Critiquing The Quebec Secessionist Movement from “an Indigenous” Lens’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to assess and critique the Quebec secessionist movement from an Indigenous lens in order to include other contexts and views on the aforementioned topic that is traditionally left to the peripheries of the Quebec secessionist movement. In order to add an Indigenous lens to the discussion of Quebec’s secessionist movement, this paper will first review the concepts of sovereignty and self-determination from both ‘western-centric’ and Indigenous views. Furthermore, this article will then review the historical formation of French and English settlers and power in what Indigenous peoples call Turtle Island, from the 1500s until 1960. Lastly, with the many political, economic, and societal changes from the 1960s and on, this paper will critique the competing views of Quebec as a sovereign entity to that of Indigenous nationhoods. This article concludes that for Quebec to truly reflect a decolonized state, the inclusion of Indigenous nations as equal partners with their own sovereignty and self-determination recognized must also occur.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".