A Written Constitution for Quebec?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No province in Canada has codified a written constitution, and whether Quebec should be the first remains a controversial question. A Written Constitution for Quebec? enters into the debate, drawing a roadmap through the legal, political, and constitutional terrain of the issue. \n \nLeading scholars each take their own position in the debate, examining the issue from various sides and exploring the forms and limits of a codified Quebec constitution by asking whether Quebec should adopt a written constitution, how the province might go about it, and what such a document might achieve. Along with a comprehensive introduction to constitutional codification and how it relates to Quebec, the book opens with a proposal for a written constitution, with the analyses that follow expressing a diversity of views on the feasibility and desirability of a written constitution for the province. An array of perspectives through the lenses of Indigenous inclusion and reconciliation, interculturalism and democratic constitutionalism, and insights from other federal and plurinational states - are included in this wide-ranging volume. \n \nTaking a doctrinal, historical, theoretical, and comparative approach, A Written Constitution for Quebec? extensively addresses Quebec’s constitutional future in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".