El derecho de secesión en Canadá: una regulación jurídica completa y un problema político sin resolver = The right to secede in Canada: a comprehensive legal framework and an unsolved political issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadá es el único país que ha reconocido el derecho a separase de la federación.\nEn este trabajo se analiza cómo se ha llegado al reconocimiento de ese derecho. El\ncamino ha sido largo y complejo. Como largo y complejo es, asimismo, la ejecución real y\nefectiva de ese derecho que, en ningún caso, puede ser unilateral. Si los federalistas dictaron\nla Ley sobre la Claridad, los nacionalistas quebequeses dictaron la Ley sobre el ejercicio\nde los derechos fundamentales y las prerrogativas del pueblo y del Estado de Québec como\nrespuesta a aquélla. En definitiva, Canadá se ha dotado de una regulación jurídica completa,\npero que sigue sin resolver el problema político del nacionalismo.Canada is the only country in the world that has recognized the right to secession\nfrom the Federation. This paper discusses how that right has come to be recognized.\nThe road has been long and complex. As long and complex as the real and effective implementation\nof the right that, under no circumstances, can be unilateral. While the Federalists\nenacted the Clarity Act, Québec nationalists in response to it, passed an Act respecting the\nexercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec\nState. In short, Canada has adopted a comprehensive legal framework, but still does not\nsolve the political issue of nationalism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".