MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W78197876

Document complémentaire á l'etude intitulée "Les droits des minorités linguistiques et culturelles dans un Québec souverain"

2002· article· fr· W78197876 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
José Woehrling

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de llengua i dret · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtPolitical scienceLawConstitutional rightFirst languageOfficial languageLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the original study, published 1992, we examined the rights that should be recognized in a sovereign Quebec, first to the Anglophone minority, second to other minorities. this update, we examine the developments in the field of linguistic and cultural rights of minorities over the last decade, first in Canadian constitutional law, then in international law. In the Canadian constitutional case law, three developments have had -or could have- the effect of broadening the scope of the rights recognized to official language minorities (Anglophones Quebec and Francophones elsewhere in Canada), and therefore of further constraining Quebec's capacity legislate in order to protect and promote the French language. In the Beaulac case in 1999, the Supreme Court clarified the differences between, on the one hand, the judicial language rights of Francophones and Anglophones and, on the other, the right the assistance of an interpreter, implicitly contained in the right to a fair trial, which all persons are entitled, regardless of their language. With regard the categories of persons eligible for public instruction in English Quebec, the Quebec Superior Court interpreted, in the 2000 Solski case, the relevant constitutional provisions as allowing all Canadians, regardless mother tongue, usual language or language of instruction, to send one of their children to a non-subsidized private English-language school in order to obtain at the same time (or shortly thereafter) the permanent right to send all their children to English-language public schools in Quebec. Finally, in its 1998 Reference on the secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court ruled that the Canadian Constitution contains implicit structural principles of normative value, particularly the principle of respect for and protection of minorities. This ruling was followed by a number of judicial proceedings in which the petitioners asked the courts to use this principle in order to recognize linguistic rights not explicitly found in the Constitution. Generally speaking, Canadian courts have so far shown judicial restraint and refused to allow new minority linguistic rights to be derived from structural principles. As for developments in international law, in its 1993 observations in the Ballantyne case, the United Nations Committee on Human Rights concluded that the Quebec Charter of the French Language, in so far as it required the exclusive use of French in commercial signs and company names, violated the freedom of expression guaranteed article 19 of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights. In 1999, the Waldman case, the Committee came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Canadian Constitution creating special rights for Catholics and Protestants were incompatible with article 26 of the Covenant against discrimination. Can the same reasoning be applied to constitutional provisions that create special rights for Anglophones and Francophones? A negative response seems in order, given that, the state must be neutral in religious matters, it manifestly cannot be neutral in language matters, since it obviously must express itself in one or more languages, which are then given preferential treatment, and it clearly cannot express itself in all the languages spoken on its territory. The study also examines the Declaration on the Rights Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1992, and the General Comment of the United Nations Committee on Human Rights on article 27 of the Covenant, adopted in 1994. Finally, with a view to ascertaining trends in international law in this area, the two main instruments adopted by the Council of Europe in the last decade, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Agreement on the Protection of National Minorities, are also taken into account. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de llengua i dretSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207