Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book provides an in-depth analysis of how constitutionalism and diversity can be friends and foes alike in contemporary multinational democracies. By focusing mainly on the dynamics between Quebec and Canada and comparing these with ongoing issues in Catalonia and Spain, Flanders and Belgium, and South Tyrol and Italy, the authors offer new insights into the public management of national diversity. In doing so, they sought to unpack the numerous challenges divided societies are facing. The pieces that together form the title of this book are not merely of symbolic significance. Constitutionalism v Diversity: Essays on Federal Democracy echoes the four underlying principles of the Canadian Constitution that the Supreme Court of Canada identified in its famous 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec. These are (1) federalism, (2) democracy, (3) constitutionalism and the rule of law, and (4) protection of minorities. While these four concepts are at the very core of both authors’ argument and approach, the Supreme Court of Canada’s Secession Reference is guiding them through the book by providing a robust and meaningful theoretical and analytical framework. These principles appear as universal normative parameters societies should see as ideals to pursue and translate – while adapting their content to the specific context – into concrete institutions and practices. Even more today this book shows the great analytical value of these four principles to critically appraise of the way multinational liberal democracies in general and federal systems in particular are evolving.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".