MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996522768

Some Missing Elements in the Quebec Constitutional Debate

2009· report· en· W6996522768 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2009
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoCovenantRelation (database)Position (finance)Element (criminal law)PoliticsConstitution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Whether the constitutional and political future of Quebec and the rest of Canada will take on radically different sovereignist turns, or fall back on the status quo, it will not be for a lack of talks, public symposia and reports of one kind or another. Yet for all these talks and activities, there has been little or no public debate informed by covenant theory, and its relation to the Canadian admixture of federal principles with a parliamentary, majoritarian system. This is the missing element in the constitutional debate. From both a sovereignist
\nor status quo position, serious consideration of covenant theory
\nand its relation to Canadian federal arrangements is not important. Indeed, the logic of each position requires not to address this issue. But any attempt at creating or recreating self-rule and shared rule among ourselves ??? in Quebec as in Canada ??? must of necessity address or be concerned with this question. This is what I wish to argue here."

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.191 · 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