Bibliographic record
Abstract
I would like to thank the Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs for inviting me to partici-pate in this forum. I am honoured to share this panel with such distinguished colleagues. But I must tell you that since I received the letter of invitation, I have not slept a wink. Every night, I would wake up and mull over the question that we have been asked to address. I know that most of you will find this very sad – and you’re right. Yet this question − does our traditional support for group rights inhibit competitiveness − has really troubled me. It took some time to realize the problem. Actually, I have three problems with the question. First, I believe it is based on an incorrect assumption. Second, the question sets up a false dichotomy. Third, the question represents an incomplete hypothesis as to the nature of the challenge. In short, if Canada wants to be truly competitive in future, we need to ask a different question. Let me explain. i. Incorrect Assumption The question asks us to discuss whether Canada’s protection of the rights of minorities over individual rights has come at the price of our economic competitiveness. The question assumes incorrectly, in my view, that Canada actively protects the rights of minorities and that special treat-ment has trumped the rights of citizens who are not members of these specially protected groups. But neither the practice nor the evidence appears to support this claim. Our rights as citizens are set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that comprises part of the Canadian Constitution. Canada also has committed itself to the defence of human rights by signing and ratifying a series of international covenants, including the United Nations Universal
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.011 |
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".