Federalism, federation and collective identities in Canada and Belgium: different routes, similar fragmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As exemplified in the simultaneous presence of rising trends towards atomization, economic, political and cultural integration, the proliferation of nationalist movements, and the multiplication of identity-based demands, the early twenty-first century is marked by tensions between universalism and particularism. These tensions tend to result in a growing polarization of political and theoretical positions, most often expressed through a debate on citizenship. Between the discourses of homogenizing universalism, exclusive nationalism, and postmodern hyperfragmentation or atomization, little space is left for a balance between unity and diversity. In this context, despite the recent collapse of federations in central and eastern European countries, most of those who believe in the suitability and feasibility of a balance between unity and diversity still consider federations – or some other type of federal system – as one of the most valuable options (see Kymlicka 1998b; Smith 1995a; Forsyth 1994, pp. 22–3; Norman 1994; Taylor 1993a; Gagnon 1993a, pp. 21–31). By way of a comparative study of the evolution of federalism, federation and collective identities in Canada and Belgium since the 1960s, this chapter seeks to demonstrate both the high importance and the major difficulties of reaching a federal balance between unity and diversity in multinational and polyethnic countries. A balance between unity and diversity – within a single multinational and polyethnic country – may be defined as the institutionalization of both the plurality and the asymmetry of allegiances in compatible ways.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".