Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some processes in every country’s history are significant and well-known to any scholar who is interested in the subject. In the history of Canada, there are many processes of this kind, for example relations with the Indigenous People or attitude towards immigrants. Québec separatism is one of these processes. There are a lot of publications and vivid discussions about this issue, however, they lack opinions from ethnic groups other than English speakers. This paper presents the history of Québec separatism from 1960 to 1980 seen through the eyes of Poles in Canada and expressed in Czas [Polish Times] — a weekly newspaper published by the Polish Diaspora in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which is a city in the prairies distant from Québec and the second largest agglomeration of Poles in Canada after Toronto. Czas was the only newspaper in that area which shaped the opinions of Polish speakers. The author used content analysis to best show the various aspects of research. This paper aims to present different views on Québec separatism that changed over time from ignorance through compromise, warnings, and danger to the first separatist referendum in 1980. The elaboration proves that even though there were not many original articles about Québec separatism in Czas — many of them were reprints from other papers, the Polish Diaspora was involved in keeping Canada united. It was a result of devotion to the Land of Maple Leaf as well as a reflection of the situation in Poland.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".