Bibliographic record
Abstract
カナダにおける地域間対立とドル化論争の意義 1990 年代末に米州全域では、自国通貨を廃止し、ドルを法定通貨とするドル化政策採用を巡る ドル化論争が盛り上がった。本論文は、カナダでのドル化論争の意義を国内の地域間対立の観点か ら分析し、1) 歴史的に連邦政府からの強い独立志向を持ってきたケベックでは他州と異なって北 米通貨同盟よりもドル化が支持されたが、中央政府への強力・重要な牽制手段としてのドル化とい う意識が背景にあった事、2) 発言権が弱かった西部地域にもケベックとの協調や決定票を握る形 での通貨制度選択への関与と国内での影響力拡大の余地が増えた事を示した。This paper analyzes the debate in Canada regarding whether or not dollarization policy should be adopted.It focuses on two regional cases in Canada, Quebec and the Western provinces.The paper highlights key regional political contexts that structure and frame the dollarization debate in different regions.For Quebec province, which has historically sought independence, the option of dollarization was seen as a significant instrument for constraining the power of the federal government.For the Western provinces, which have historically sought equal treatment in domestic political affairs and gained relative economic strength in 2000s, the dollarization debate has presented opportunities for exercising influence in deciding Canada's choice of exchange rate regime and bargaining power through cooperation with Quebec, casting vote.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".