Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canadian party leadership studies have tended to focus on the ways leaders are selected without considering how leadership careers end. Data was assembled on the careers of 138 provincial party leaders during the past forty years to answer two related questions: How long did leadership careers last, and under what conditions did leaders leave (or "exit") their positions? Most party leadership careers were brief. More than half of all leaders led their parties through no more than one general election. Longevity differed by political party, with the average length of leadership being greater among C.C.F. / N.D.P. leaders than among those of Liberal and Conservative parties. More than two-fifths of all leaders exited their positions for electoral reasons, and more than one-quarter of all leaders were personally defeated in elections or by-elections. Electoral exits were slightly more common among Liberal and Conservative leaders than among C.C.F. / N.D.P. leaders. Leaders who were successful in leading governments tended to have much longer leadership careers than other leaders. Premier leaders were more likely to make voluntary exits, and were less susceptible to election-related departures than less successful leaders. Little evidence was found to support the hypothesis that C.C.F. / N.D.P. provincial parties which enjoyed some success in forming governments were any more competitive (from the perspective of leadership exit) than were C.C.F. / N.D.P. parties which had been unsuccessful in forming governments. Most party leaders had pre-leadership elected experience at either the provincial or federal level. Experience prior to leadership careers seemed to serve as a "hedge" against leadership exits caused by personal defeat at the polls. "Experienced" leaders, however, were no more likely than others to have long careers. More than one-quarter of former leaders became M.L.A.s or M.P.s after exit. Most of those with post-leadership elected careers had relatively long leadership careers, and most had left their leadership positions involuntarily. About one-fifth of all party leaders had elected service both before and after their leadership careers.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».