Québec's Cultural Policy in the United States: From Diplomacy to Industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Québec state apparatus, which developed most fully starting in the 1960s, initially focused the objectives of Québec's cultural policy in the United States on the promotion of nationalism and the building of a national identity. Following the 1990s recessions, the Québec government adjusted its policies to partly focus its cultural policy on the marketing of cultural industries. Cultural industries have increasingly been promoted as helping build the national identity while providing jobs and contributing to Québec's GDP. Today, the Québec government's main objective in the United States is promoting and securing business opportunities. It explicitly pursues its cultural policy in the United States with this objective at the forefront. This paper seeks to answer the following question: How has the Québec government's cultural policy in the United States evolved since the 1960s? Overall, there has been a notable shift in Québec's cultural policy in the United States. It has become mainly pragmatic or utilitarian, serving as tool to advance economic benefits for the province. Using original archival research, government documentation, and academic literature, this chapter chronicles this shift that has taken place in the 1990s, while further discussing the implications of a utilitarian cultural policy in the long run.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".