Alberta's Sovereignty Act: Wexit Wake-up Call or Western Woolliness? (ep 308)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This week: Alberta sovereignty. Sovereign over what and whom, you may ask? Great questions, ones that finally got an answer last week when, on November 29, Premier Danielle Smith introduced her first bill, the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act. Or did they? Already it seems, Smith has done a western walk-back of some of the bill's more controversial aspects-indeed, days after we recorded our discussion about it on December 2-making it a bit of a moving target. In any case, it never hurts to be Indigenously nervous when provincial premiers flirt with secession, especially when it could come at our expense. Joining host/producer Rick Harp at the roundtable once again to walk through the Act (such as it was at the time), and what Indigenous peoples there have to say about it, are Associate Professor of Indigenous Studies at York University Brock Pitawanakwat and assistant professor with the University of Alberta's department of drama Ken Williams. // CREDITS: \\"The Thought of You,\\" by Squire Tuck; our intro/xtro theme is 'nesting' by birocratic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.751 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".