MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W220355145

J. Rick Ponting. the Nisga'a Treaty: Polling Dynamics and Political Communication in Comparative Context

2008· article· en· W220355145 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicholas D. Spence

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian ethnic studies · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueRhetoric and Communication Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPollingTreatyPoliticsPublic opinionContext (archaeology)DemocracyPolitical scienceLawGovernment (linguistics)LegislaturePublic administrationSociologyMedia studiesHistoryComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

J. Rick Ponting. The Nisga'a Treaty: Polling Dynamics and Political Communication in Comparative Context. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2006. 194 pp. $29.95 sc. Relations between Aboriginals and the greater society continue to be most delicate. J. Rick Ponting provides a well documented and analytical comparative piece, detailing the processing of public opinion of the Nisga'a Treaty in British Columbia and the official reconciliation process by political powers in Australia. More broadly, this work speaks to the intersection between public opinion polling and issues related to democratic politics and leadership. Specifically, it poses some key questions: how should government use public opinion polling and should it be responsive to it or lead and shape it? The main case study is the Nisga'a Treaty. The focus is on the polling and advertising events from the summer and fall of 1998, during which the Nisga'a Treaty was signed, ratified by the Nisga'a people, and the provincial legislature was recalled to deal with the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act (Bill 51). The political ethnography documents the extensive public opinion polling and advertising campaign, with a thorough look at the manner in which this was handled within government circles. The second case study serves as a complement to the Nisga'a Treaty study, examining events in Australia in late 1999 and early 2000 in preparation for the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. In the case of British Columbia, for Premier Glen Clark and the New Democratic Party, Nisga'a was the number one issue. Selling the treaty was a high priority as the government sought to use it to regain its waning popularity in the province. Clark played a leadership role in the process and used significant human and financial resources to ensure its success, assigning some of his top people to the project, including his own Deputy Minister, polling experts, and advertising specialists. About $7.6 million was spent on the implementation effort, which included polling, advertising, and public information campaigning to gauge public opinion and sell the treaty to the public. The stakes were high as the treaty faced strong opposition from high-profile individuals in the public, media, and political sphere. In Australia, the political environment was quite different: Indigenous issues were not a top priority, and relations between the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the federal government were strained. Prime Minister John Howard was opposed to a fundamental part of the reconciliation process, namely, a government apology to the Indigenous people of Australia. He played much less of a leadership role in reconciliation than did Clark in British Columbia. The unified New Democratic Party government, in contrast to the less cohesive relations in the Australian Commonwealth government, yielded a variety of different outcomes; however, the generation and processing of public opinion data by each government was quite similar in many ways, governed by socio-political factors at every step. Methodologically, Ponting's work is a political ethnography drawing on numerous sources to provide a fair account of the events that transpired, including interviews with politicians, bureaucrats, key non-government players, as well as documents from public sources including web sites and those accessed through the Freedom of Information Act. This comparative historical work has roots in symbolic interactionist theory and social constructionist theory, particularly Hubert Blumer's constructivist approach to examining public opinion. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,766
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,878

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,339
Tête enseignante GPT0,371
Écart entre enseignants0,032 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian ethnic studiesMême sujetRhetoric and Communication StudiesTravaux en français237 207