The currency of federalism. Federal perceptions and preferences of Francophone Belgian citizens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In both Belgium and Canada, federalism is a hot and important topic. In order to explore the federal perceptions and preferences of the citizens in these two federations, four citizens’ meetings or assemblies are organised: two in Belgium (in Liège, Wallonia, in French, and in Antwerp, Flanders, in Dutch), and two in Canada (in Montreal, Quebec, in French, and in Kingston, Ontario, in English). During a whole day, sixty citizens are gathered to discuss with four experts and in small groups about the federalism in their country. The organisation and the methodology of the meetings are inspired from both citizens’ assemblies and deliberative polls. The first meeting took place at the Université de Liège, on September 29, 2007. The preliminary analyses of the qualitative and quantitative data collected during the nine hours long exchanges are presented in this paper. The first analyses shed light on the relations between the federal perceptions and preferences of French-speaking Belgian citizens. The preliminary results emphasise the diversity of knowledge, attitudes and opinions on Belgian federalism and highlight the contrast between these perceptions and preferences and the federal reality of Belgium as well as its possible evolution. The second meeting took place at the Université de Montréal, on March 15, 2008 and will be followed, respectively in June and November 2008, by the meetings in Kingston and in Antwerp.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".