MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W560866568

Compounding the Policy Platform of Independence: Nationalist Party “Diffusion” in Quebec and Flanders

2013· article· en· W560866568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glen M.E. Duerr

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalCommons-Cedarville (Cedarville University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVlaamse regering
KeywordsCompoundingIndependence (probability theory)NationalismPolitical scienceDiffusionLawMedicinePoliticsStatisticsMathematicsThermodynamics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proliferation of nationalist political parties in the developed world continues to challenge the integrity of some of the world’s most stable democracies. In Canada and Belgium, both countries have experienced the challenge of nationalist parties in the province of Quebec and region of Flanders respectively. However, in both cases, there are now at least two nationalist political parties that both support the idea of independence for both Quebec and Flanders. This nationalist party “diffusion” further challenges the integrity of the Canadian and Belgian states. The Parti Quebecois has served as the main sponsor of nationalism in the province of Quebec. However, another nationalist party, Quebec solidaire, has also recently begun to win support in the National Assembly. Vlaams Belang (VB) has played a similar role in trying to obtain independence for Flanders. However, Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA) also recently adopted the platform of independence and recently won the most votes (and seats) in the 2010 Belgian general election. This diffusion of nationalist parties has caused strains on the respective governments of Canada and Belgium respectively. In both cases this has not yet resulted in secession or the dissolution of the state, but challenges remain to the unity of both states.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitalCommons-Cedarville (Cedarville University)Same topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207