Québec and Its Cultural Policies: The Affirmation of a National Identity, a Distinct Culture, Creative and Open to the World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter traces the evolution of Québec’s cultural policy and its administration by public authorities. After an overview of the first government interventions in this domain, it focuses on the province’s policy, which was formalized when the Ministère des Affaires culturelles (MAC) was created in 1961, a first in the Americas. As a predominantly French-speaking society in a predominantly English speaking Canada, Québec has a distinctive cultural policy, notably with regard to its scope, extent, and magnitude. Unlike other provinces, whose relations with the federal government in the cultural sphere are generally harmonious and recognize Ottawa’s role as a promoter of Canadian culture, Québec has developed and implemented cultural policies that promote French-Canadian culture and, more specifically, since the 1960s and 1970s, Québécois culture. Promotion of identity and affirmation of the Francophone minority in Canada explain the importance given to culture and the French language by successive Québec governments, regardless of the political party in power. Québec’s cultural policy has developed over decades, sometimes via power struggles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".