Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with an analysis of the Quebec issue in Modern Canada. Based on the necessary corpus of sources and the corresponding historiography, the author tries to answer the question whether the Quebec issue is relevant for Canada in the present or it has remained in the past forever. In his article, the author not only summarizes and systematizes the history of the French-Canadian issue itself, but also analyzes the activities of the Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois, which have been fighting for Quebec sovereignty for many years. He emphasizes that it was with these two associations that the idea of Quebec sovereignty was connected, and focuses on the activities of René Lévesque and Jacques Parizeau, who prepared two referendums on the sovereignty of Quebec. The study results in the conclusion that at the party-political level (due to the change in the party ideology of the Bloc Québécois and the failure of the Parti Québécois in the 2018 provincial elections), of course, the idea of sovereignty has become a thing of the past. While at the mental level (the memory of the historical trauma of the 60s in the 18th century, when new France was conquered by England), the idea of sovereignty meets the interests of part of the French-Canadian community.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".