¹ Wood, John R., ‘Secession: A Comparative Analytical Framework’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 16 (1981), 107–34, p. 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Lindgren, Raymond, Norway-Sweden: Union, Disunion and Integration (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1951)Google Scholar; Tomasson, Richard F., Iceland: The First New Society (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980), p. 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greenleaf, W. H., The British Political Tradition, Vol. I: The Rise of Collectivism (London: Routledge, 1988), pp. 206–7, Table 9.Google Scholar

³ For instance, Sweden and Norway were already recognized as distinct before 1905. There were two judicial systems, two governments without hierarchies between them, two citizenships, two armies, and no Swedish population living in Norway. The two countries shared only diplomacy and the person of the king.

⁴ Secessions occurring under authoritarian rule or in new democracies are beyond the scope of this note, although the argument may offer parallels that would be useful in subsequent analyses.

⁵ Draper, Theodore, ‘The End of Czechoslovakia’, New York Review of Books, 40 (1993), 20–6, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁶ I will not discuss whether a majority support in the seceding region is sufficient to legitimate a secession. A case can be made that the citizens of the other regions of the country must also be consulted. We may also consider that citizens who are in a minority in the region concerned should not be forced to undergo a change of country against their will. Since democracy is not just majority rule, and demands that the rights of minorities and individuals be protected, some critical decisions must be taken by qualified majorities, and secession is just such a critical decision. Such uncertainties about the adequate democratic rules for secessions will be taken into account in this Note only for the negative effect they may have on secessionist support. In Quebec, surveys have shown that two out of three Quebeckers consider a 50 percent plus one vote inadequate to justify secession. See Massicotte, Louis, ‘La réforme de la procédure référendaire québécoise: réflexions sur quelques enjeux’, in Côté, Pierre F. et al. , Démocratie et référendum: la procédure référendaire (Montreal: Québec-Amérique, 1992), pp. 117–36.Google Scholar

⁷ Stepan, Alfred, ‘When Democracy and the Nation-State Are Competing Logics: Reflections on Estonia’, Archives européennes de sociologie, 35 (1994), 127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Wood, , ‘Secession: A Comparative Analytical Framework’Google Scholar; Hechter, Michael, ‘The Dynamics of Secession,’ Acta Sociologica, 35 (1992), 267–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ The fear/confidence distinction has parallels with the classic distinction between grievance and opportunity proposed by William Gamson to explain protest movements generally, a distinction that has inspired the ethnic conflict literature in various ways. For instance, Maurice Pinard and Richard Hamilton make the distinction between internal motives and external incentives and Hudson Meadwell between enabling and constraining conditions. The fear/confidence distinction has the advantage of being clearer and simpler, of corresponding to the way people themselves express their perceptions, and of enlightening the contradictory effects that make secession difficult. In an earlier paper, I proposed a distinction between feelings of fear, confidence and rejection. In fact, rejection is an element of fear, a negative consideration about the future within a union. See Gamson, William, Power and Discontent (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1968)Google Scholar; Pinard, Maurice and Hamilton, Richard, ‘Motivational Dimensions in the Quebec Independence Movement: A Test of a New Model’, Research in Social Movements; Conflict and Changes, 9 (1986), 225–80Google Scholar; Meadwell, Hudson, ‘The Politics of Nationalism in Quebec’, World Politics, 45 (1993), 203–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dion, Stéphane, ‘Explaining Quebec Nationalism’, in Weaver, R. Kent, ed., The Collapse of Canada? (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1992), pp. 77–121.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Hardin, Russell, ‘Self Interest, Group Identity’, in Breton, Albert, ed., Nationalism and Rationality (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

¹¹ Geertz, Clifford, ‘The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States’, in Geertz, Clifford., ed., Old Societies and New States (New York: The Free Press, 1963).Google Scholar

¹² See Hechter, , ‘The Dynamics of Secession’, pp. 272–3Google Scholar; Smith, Anthony D., ‘The Origins of Nations’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12 (1989), 340–67, p. 363CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pinard, and Hamilton, , ‘Motivational Dimensions in the Quebec Independence Movement’, pp. 267–8.Google Scholar

¹³ Elster, Jon, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 69–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also Crazier, Michel and Friedberg, Ehrard, Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁴ As prospect choice theory argues, people under conditions of uncertainty usually allow more considerations to potential losses than to potential gains. See Quattrone, George A. and Tversky, Amos, ‘Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analysis of Political Choice’, American Political Science Review, 82 (1988), 719–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Likewise, organizational theorists suggest that people are more sensitive to issue characteristics associated with threats than to those associated with opportunities. See Jackson, Susan E. and Dutton, Jane E., ‘Discerning Threats and Opportunities’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 33 (1988), 370–87, p. 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Darcy, R. and Laver, Michael, ‘Referendum Dynamics and the Irish Divorce Amendment’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 54 (1990), 1–20, p. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also Banting, Keith and Simeon, Richard, ‘The Politics of Constitutional Change’, in Banting, Keith and Simeon, Richard, eds, Redesigning the State: The Politics of Constitutional Change (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), p. 25.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Savigear, Peter, ‘Corsica’, in Watson, Michael, ed., Contemporary Minority Nationalism (London: Routledge, 1990)Google Scholar; Donavan, Mark, ‘A Party System in Transformation: The April 1992 Italian Election’, West European Politics, 15 (1992), 170–7, p. 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woods, Dwayne, ‘Les ligues régionales en Italie’, Revue française de science politique, 42 (1992), 36–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

¹⁸ ‘The fact that the seceding units themselves should grant the right of self-determination within their boundaries should put a prudential check on the aspiration to seek self-determination in territorially problematic zones’ (O'Leary, Brendan, ‘The Macro-Political Regulation of Ethnic Conflict’, in Breton, , ed., Nationalism and Rationality)Google Scholar. This domino-effect in partition is the basic issue addressed by the normative theory of the right of secession. See Beran, H., ‘A Liberal Theory of Secession’, Political Studies, 32 (1984), 21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beran, H., ‘More Theory of Secession: Reply to Birch’, Political Studies, 36 (1988), 316–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Birch, Anthony H., ‘Another Liberal Theory of Secession’, Political Studies, 32 (1984), 596–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buchanan, Allen, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec (Boulder, Colo.: Oxford Westview Press, 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁹ In 1860, many Americans regarded a civil war as inconceivable. ‘President James Buchanan had insisted that, although secession was unconstitutional, it was also unconstitutional to stop it.’ Morton, Desmond, ‘Reflections on the Breakup of Canada, Conflict, and Self-Determination’, in McCallum, John, ed., Tangled Web: Legal Aspects of Deconfederation (Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute, 1992), p. 90.Google Scholar Sweden mobilized in the final crisis with Norway and the Irish secession occurred after a series of violent events. On secessionism and bloodshed in non-democratic states, see Premdas, Ralph R., Samarasinghe, S. W. R. de A. and Anderson, Alan B., eds, Secessionist Movements in Comparative Perspective (London: Pinter Publishers, 1990).Google Scholar

²⁰ Craven, Gregory, Secession: The Ultimate State's Right (Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 1986), pp. 34–6.Google Scholar The union may consider that the referendum must be done over the whole country and not only in the secessionist region, and that a qualified majority is necessary to legitimate a decision as crucial as a secession. The state of international law on secession is sufficiently vague and contradictory to open the door to substantial judicial disputes. International law proclaims a broad right of self-determination for all peoples without offering a clear definition of what a ‘people’ is, and at the same time it guarantees territorial integrity for existing states. See Buchheit, Lee C., Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

²¹ Horowitz, Donald, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), p. 229.Google Scholar

²² Taylor, Charles, Modernity and the Politics of Recognition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

²³ Hiller, Harry H., ‘Secession in Western Australia: A Continuing Phenomenon?’, Australian Quarterly, 59 (1987), 222–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Lemco, Jonathan, Political Stability in Federal Government (New York: Praeger, 1991), pp. 71–90.Google Scholar

²⁵ After Quebec, the Flemish part of Belgium would come at the top of the list. See Osouf, Marc, ‘Interminable divorce beige…ou un champ d'expériences pour l'Europe?’, Relations internationales et stratégiques, 13 (1994), 186–96.Google Scholar

²⁶ Founded in 1968 by a charismatic leader, René Lévesque, the Parti Québécois held power in the Quebec provincial legislature from 1976 to 1985. It lost power to the Liberal party in December 1985 and has remained in opposition until its 12 September 1994 electoral victory. For some background on Quebec politics, the introductory book in English is McRoberts, Kenneth, Quebec: Social Change and Political Crisis, 3d edn (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1988).Google Scholar A presentation aimed at a non-Canadian audience is offered in Weaver, ed., The Collapse of Canada?

²⁷ Groupe de recherche sur la mobilité de l'opinion publique, ‘Opinions au sujet de la souveraineté exprimées lors de la campagne électorale au Québec de 1994’, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal.

²⁸ Blais, André and Gidengil, Elisabeth, ‘The Quebec Referendum: Why Did Quebeckers Say No’, paper prepared for the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, Ontario (1993), p. 6Google Scholar; Gauthier, Claude, ‘Les Québécois et la question linguistique… et plus particulièrement la langue de l'affichage commercial. Sondage d'opinion’Google Scholar auprès des Québécois pour le Conseil de la langue française', Centre de recherche sur l'opinion publique, Montréal, March (1993), p. 3. For earlier evidence of the linguistic and cultural fear of assimilation, see the 1970 poll reported by Pinard, and Hamilton, , ‘Motivational Dimensions in the Quebec Independence Movement’, pp. 237–8.Google Scholar

²⁹ Blais, and Gidengil, , ‘The Quebec Referendum’, pp. 6–7 and 19–20.Google ScholarNadeau, Richard and Fleury, Christopher J., ‘Gains linguistiques anticipés et appui à la souveraineté’ (unpublished paper, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, 1994).Google Scholar

³⁰ Before the 1960s, Quebec nationalism was essentially community-based, apolitical, conservative and centred on the Roman Catholic Church: see Bélanger, André J., L'Apolitisme des idéologies québécoises (Quebec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 1974)Google Scholar; Dion, Léon, The Unfinished Revolution (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1976), pp. 113–24.Google Scholar

³¹ Coleman, William D., The Independence Movement in Quebec: 1943–1980 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), pp. 201–2Google Scholar; Borins, Sandford F., The Language of the Skies: The Bilingual Air Traffic Control Conflict in Canada (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Pinard, Maurice and Hamilton, Richard, ‘The Parti Québécois Comes to Power: An Analysis of the 1976 Quebec Election’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 11 (1978), 739–75, pp. 745–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Cloutier, Edouard, Guay, Jean H. and Latouche, Daniel, Le virage. L'évolution de l'opinion publique au Québec depuis 1960 ou comment le Québec est devenu souverainiste (Montreal: Québec/Amérique, 1992), p. 64Google Scholar; Dion, ‘Explaining Quebec Nationalism’, pp. 92–7 and 113.

³³ Fishman, Joshua A., Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers, 1973)Google Scholar; Edwards, John, Linguistic Minorities, Policies and Pluralism (London: Academic Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Laponce, Jean, Languages and their Territories (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Conversi, Daniele, ‘Language or Race? The Choice of Core Values in the Development of Catalan and Basque Nationalisms’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 13 (1990), 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Nadeau, and Fleury, , ‘Gains linguistiques anticipés et appui à la souveraineté’, p. 9.Google Scholar

³⁵ Bercuson, David J. and Cooper, Barry, Deconfederation: Canada without Quebec (Toronto: Key Porter, 1991)Google Scholar; Gerber, Linda M., ‘Referendum Results: Defining New Boundaries for an Independent Quebec’, Canadian Ethnic Studies, 24 (1992), 22–34Google Scholar; Watson, William G., ‘Separation and the English of Quebec’, in McCallum, John, ed., Survival: Official Language Rights in Canada (Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute, 1992)Google Scholar; Turpel, Mary E., ‘Does the Road to Québec Sovereignty Run through Aboriginal Territory?’, in Drache, Daniel and Perin, Robero, eds, Negotiating with a Sovereign Québec (Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1992)Google Scholar; McNeil, Kent, ‘Aboriginal Nations and Québec's Boundaries: Canada Couldn't Give What It Didn't Have’Google Scholar, in Drache and Perin, eds, Negotiating with a Sovereign Québec. These territorial claims are challenged by legal experts close to the Parti Québécois; Henri Brun, ‘L'intégrité territoriale d'un Québec souverain’, in Gagnon, Alain-G. and Rocher, François; eds, Répliques aux détracteurs de la souveraineté du Québec (Montreal: VLB éditeur, 1992).Google Scholar

³⁶ Brodeur, Jean-Paul, ‘L'obstacle des troubles intérieurs’, in Gagnon and Rocher, Répliques aux détracteurs de la souveraineté du Québec.Google Scholar

³⁷ Toulin, Alan, ‘Majority back Aboriginal referendum if province separates: poll’. Financial Post, 28 06 1994.Google Scholar

³⁸ Lisée, Jean-François, Le Tricheur: Robert Bourassa et les Québécois, 1990–91 (Montreal: Boréal, 1994), p. 121.Google Scholar

³⁹ Bernier, Gérald, ‘Economic Policy’, in Lachapelle, Guy, ed., The Quebec Democracy: Structures, Processes and Policies (Toronto: McGrath-Hill Ryerson, 1993), pp. 297–323Google Scholar; Noël, Alain, ‘Politics in a High Unemployment Society’, in Gagnon, Alain G., ed., Quebec: State and Society, 2nd edn (Toronto: Nelson Canada, 1993).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Vaillancourt, François, ‘Demolinguistic Trends and Canadian Institutions: An Economic Perspective’, in Demolinguistic Trends and the Evolution of Canadian Institutions (Ottawa: Commissioner of Official Languages, 1989)Google Scholar; Shapiro, D. M. and Stelcner, M., ‘Earnings Disparities among Linguistic Groups in Quebec, 1970–1980’, Canadian Public Policy, 13 (1987), 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Pinard, Maurice, ‘The Quebec Independence Movement: A Dramatic Reemergence’, Working Papers in Social Behaviour, No. 92–06 (Montreal: Department of Sociology, McGill University, 1992), p. 28, Table 3 and p. 29.Google Scholar

⁴² Blais, André and Nadeau, Richard, ‘To Be or Not To Be Sovereignist: Quebeckers' Perennial Dilemma’, Canadian Public Policy, 28 (1992), 89–103, p. 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blais, and Gidengil, , ‘The Quebec Referendum’, pp. 6–7Google Scholar; Nadeau, and Fleury, , ‘Gains linguistiques anticipés et appui à la souveraineté’.Google Scholar

⁴³ Québec, Assemblée nationale, Commission d'étude des questions afférentes à l'accession du Québec à la souveraineté Projet de rapport (Quebec: Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 1992), p. 161Google Scholar; Lemco, Jonathan, ‘Turmoil in the Peaceable Kingdom: The Quebec Sovereignty Movement and Its Implications for Canada and the United States’, Canada-US Outlook, 3 (1992), 1–177, pp. 78–89.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Québécois, Parti, Le Québec dans un monde nouveau (Montreal: VLB éditeur, 1993), pp. 17, 33, 39.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Raynaud, André, Les Enjeux économiques de la souveraineté: Mémoire soumis au C.P.Q. (Montréal: Conseil du Patronat, 1990).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Blais and Nadeau, ‘To Be or Not To Be Sovereignist’.

⁴⁷ Nathan, Richard P., ‘Defining Modern Federalism’, in Scheiber, Harry N., ed., North America and Comparative Federalism, Essays for the 1990s (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), pp. 89–99, at p. 95.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Dion, ‘Explaining Quebec Nationalism’, p. 84, Table 2; Gray, Gwendolyn, Federalism and Health Policy: The Development of Health Systems in Canada and Australia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 19.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Brown, Gordon R., ‘Canadian Federal-Provincial Overlap and Government Inefficiency’, Publius, 24 (1994), 21–38Google Scholar; Corbeil, Michel, ‘Le grand désordre?’ Expression, 06 (1991), 38–41Google Scholar; Dion, Stéphane and Gow, James Iain, ‘L'administration publique’, in Monière, Denis, ed., L'année politique au Québec (Montreal: Le Devoir–Québec/Amérique, 1992), pp. 80–1Google Scholar; Delorme, Pierre, ‘L'intégration des fonctionnaires fédéraux à la fonction publique québécoise’Google Scholar, in Gagnon et Rocher, Répliques aux détracteurs de la souveraineté.

⁵⁰ Québécois, Parti, ‘Le Québec dans un monde nouveau, pp. 73–4.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Mackie, Richard, ‘Quebeckers want power shift, poll finds’, Globe and Mail, 20 05 1994, p. AI.Google Scholar

⁵² Sarra-Bournet, Michel, ‘French Power, Quebec Power: La place des francophones québécois à Ottawa’, in Rocher, François, ed., Bilan québécois du fédéralisme canadien (Montreal: VLB éditeur, 1992), pp. 209–16.Google Scholar

⁵³ Bourgault, Jacques and Dion, Stéphane, The Changing Profile of Federal Deputy Ministers, 1867 to 1988 (Ottawa: Canadian Center for Management Development, 1991), p. 4Google Scholar; Savoie, Donald J., The Politics of Language (Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University, 1991), pp. 3–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Poll reported in La Presse, 29 August 1994.

⁵⁵ Dion, Stéphane, ‘La sécession du Québec: évaluation des probabilités’, Relations internationales et stratégiques, 13 (1994), 205–23, at Table 4, p. 223.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Polls reported in Le Soleil, 30 July 1994, and The Gazette, 10 September 1994.

⁵⁷ For detailed surveys of the course of events during these negotiations, see Russell, Peter, Constitutional Odyssey: Can Canadians Be a Sovereign People? (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), pp. 72–153Google Scholar; Gagnon, Alain-G., ‘Québec–Canada: Constitutional Developments, 1960–92’Google Scholar, in Gagnon, , Quebec: State and Society.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Biais, André and Crête, Jean, ‘Pourquoi l'opinion publique au Canada anglais a-t-elle rejeté l'Accord du lac Meech?’, in Hudon, Raymond and Pelletier, Réjean, ed., L'Engagement intellectuel: mélanges en l'honneur de Léon Dion (Quebec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 1991), pp. 385–402, at p. 398Google Scholar; Breton, Raymond, Why Meech Failed: Lessons for Canadian Constitutionmaking (Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute, 1992), p. 16Google Scholar; Franks, Charles E. S., The Myths and Symbols of the Constitutional Debate in Canada, Reflections Paper No. 11 (Kingston: Queen's University, 1993)Google Scholar; Pinard, , ‘The Quebec Independence Movement’, p. 25Google Scholar; Richards, John, ‘The Case for Provincial Jurisdiction over Language’, in McCallum, , ed., Survival, pp. 9–56, at p. 10Google Scholar; Simpson, Jeffrey, Fault Lines: Struggling for a Canadian Vision (Toronto: Harper, 1993), pp. 356–7Google Scholar; Taylor, Charles, Rapprocher les solitudes: écrits sur le fédéralisme et le nationalisme au Canada (Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval, 1992), pp. 215–33.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Franks, , The Myths and Symbols of the Constitutional Debate in Canada, p. 58.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Blais, André and Nadeau, Richard, ‘La clientèle du Parti québécois: évolution de la clientèle de 1970 à 1981’, in Crête, Jean, ed., Comportement électoral au Québec (Chicoutimi: Gaëtan Morin, 1984), pp. 229–318Google Scholar, at pp. 293–4; André Blais and Richard Nadeau, ‘La clientèle du OUI’, in Crête, ed., Comportement électoral au Québec, pp. 321–34Google Scholar, at p. 329; Breton, Albert, ‘The Economics of Nationalism’, Journal of Political Economy, 72 (1964), 376–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guindon, Hubert, ‘Social Unrest, Social Class, and Québec's Bureaucratic Revolution’, Queen's Quarterly, 71 (1964), 150–62Google Scholar; Pinard, Maurice and Hamilton, Richard, ‘The Leadership of Intellectuals in Traditional Parties: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives’, in Gagnon, Alain G. and Tanguay, A. Brian, eds, Canadian Parties in Transition (Scarborough, Ont: Nelson Canada, 1989), pp. 287–308, at p. 294.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Blais, André and Dion, Stéphane, ‘Les employés du secteur public sont-ils différents?’, Revue française de science politique, 37 (1987), 77–97, pp. 90–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guay, Cloutier and Latouche, , Le Virage, p. 146Google Scholar; Blais, and Nadeau, , ‘To' Be or Not To Be Sovereignist’Google Scholar; Nadeau, Richard, ‘Le virage souverainiste des Québécois, 1980–1990’, Recherches sociographiques, 33 (1992), 9–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pinard, , ‘The Quebec Independence Movement’Google Scholar; Meadwell, , ‘The Politics of Nationalism in Quebec’, p. 211Google Scholar, Table 1; Blais, and Gidengil, , ‘The Quebec Referendum’, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

⁶² Nadeau and Fleury, ‘Gains linguistiques anticipés et appui à la souveraineté’.

⁶³ Russell, , Constitutional Odyssey, p. 75.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Linz, Juan J. and Stepan, Alfred, ‘Political Identities and Electoral Sequences: Spain, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia’, Daedalus, 121 (1992), 123–39, p. 130.Google Scholar