The Calgary Declaration: A Different Kind of Unity Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Calgary Declaration is a unity initiative created by the nine English-speaking premiers and two territorial leaders on September 14, 1997. In contrast to both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, little study has been completed on this document, despite the fact that it was the last attempt by Canada's first ministers to deal with the national unity issue in the twentieth century. Study of this initiative is required to identify the status of the national unity debate at the start of the new millennium and to contribute to a better understanding of Canadian federalism. The unsettling results of the Quebec referendum of 1995 caused the attitudes of Canadians outside of Quebec to harden. Within Quebec, separatists were prepared to depict a lack of action as an insult. Canadian federalist leaders had to put forward a goodwill overture before the next Quebec provincial election or face the prospect that the "two-solitudes" would become further estranged. However, when the meeting in Calgary finally took place, historic provincial and regional disputes re-emerged. The premiers were only able to agree upon a list of descriptive statements about Canada and a vague public consultation process. Unlike its controversial predecessors, the Declaration focuses upon the principle of federalism instead of institutions. When this fact is combined with its focus on public consultations, the Declaration becomes a document concerned more about reforming Canadian attitudes than institutions. The response of Canadians to the Declaration's contents, both inside and outside of Quebec, indicates that the federal principle remains firmly embedded in the Canadian identity despite the traumatic results of the Quebec referendum of 1995. Canada's federalist leaders should continue the discussions started by the Calgary process to ensure that when institutional reform is again discussed Canadians will be prepared.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".