Bibliographic record
Abstract
I start with two great truths about federal systems of government.First, their primary purpose is to organize the exercise of democratic self-determination.Their role is not simply to allow for policy differentiation at different levels of the state.That is epiphenomenal, not primary.Their primary role is to organize democratic agency so that citizens can govern themselves through engagement in two overlapping political communities. 1 The test of a healthy federal system is therefore the health of each of these levels as arenas for democratic self-government.That means that one must attend to questions of democratic legitimacy, political participation, and the practical conditions of effective citizenship at both levels of government.The preconditions of democratic sovereignty and allegiance are crucial elements in our assessment of the continuing viability of federal structures of government.We saw the role of such an emphasis on democratic participation in the great constitutional debates of the centennial era.That was a time of significant democratization of Canadian political life, especially in Quebec where, through the Quiet Revolution, francophone Quebecers sought to use the state as never before to serve as their agent in the pursuit of collectively-determined ends, and in Ottawa, where successive governments sought to make the federal level a forum for the political engagement of francophone as well as anglophone Canadians.The era saw, then, the simultaneous redefinition of both levels of government as forums for democratic self-government, seeking to make them genuinely accessible to their francophone as well as their anglophone citizens.This transformation of French Canadian participation in political life drove the debates over Canadian federalism in the 1960s and 1970s.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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 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".