Canada's Intangible Economic Cultural Capital (Outline for Characterization)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian society is the product, if not a fusion, then a close coexistence of two cultures - English, Protestant and French, Catholic. It is natural that its cultural capital – values, traditions, perceptions, norms, etc. – is composed of elements of the cultural capitals of England (Britain) and France, or a mixture of them. Thus, Canada has inherited from them statism and communitarianism, while the United States has come to be dominated by anti-statist and individualistic sentiments. The harsh living conditions and remoteness from metropolitan areas have been instrumental in producing a "garrison mentality" and a "survival" orientation among Canadians, which provoked a more communitarian lifestyle. Direct observers of life in New France in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries noted a sharp contrast between the French and the English – the former imitating the local nobility in trying to keep up with it in luxury, while the latter sought to toil hard and to invest their earnings in business. Differences in work and consumer ethics between English-speaking (Protestants) and French-speaking (Catholics) Canadians seem mostly to be a thing of the past, however, the rejection of mercantile orientation in some segments of Canadian society still persists to the present day. Canadian managers are not as aggressive and assertive as Americans and are more ready to take into account the public interest. True to some of its historical European roots, Canada has adopted many social democratic practices – a fairly developed welfare state (with free healthcare) and large-scale state entrepreneurship (however, its size has been significantly reduced lately). Proximity to such an economic giant as the USA has both pluses and minuses. The southern neighbor is suspected of trying to format the Canadian economy to suit its own goals and objectives, which causes rejection and resistance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".