Dilemmas of Solidarity: Rethinking Redistribution in the Canadian Federation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the rise of the Canadian welfare state in the aftermath of the Second World War, the politics of social policy and fiscal federalism have been at the centre of federal-provincial relations. Recent events have given impetus for scholars to re-examine these issues. In 2002, the Quebec Commission on Fiscal Imbalance released its report, which introduced the term 'vertical fiscal imbalance' into the vocabulary of Canadian politics. Essentially, the commission determined that a disjunction between revenue-raising capacity and expenditures involving different orders of government - vertical fiscal imbalance - was an urgent problem that must be addressed. Dilemmas of Solidarity is both a reflection on and response to that finding.\nEditors Sujit Choudhry, Jean-Francois Graudreault-Desbiens, and Lorne Sossin bring together an array of respected legal and political scholars to reflect on the Quebec Commission's findings. The contributors to this volume illustrate how recent debates surrounding Canada's equalization program suggest alternative ways to approach the issue. The goal of Dilemmas of Solidarity is to stand back from the particulars of different policy debates, to enable scholars to reflect on basic questions regarding redistribution. This fascinating collection will undoubtedly inform a more nuanced and wide-ranging debate both among academics and policy practitioners than has occurred in this past.
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.083 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".