An interpretive, paradigmatic, and comparative analysis of Canadian and Australian green parties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Green parties have acquired political influence in Australia, and more recently, Canada. Specifically, Australia has federal and state Green parliamentarians, while polling data demonstrates that since 1991, Canadian Greens have, taken together, increased their share of the popular vote. Notwithstanding their electoral successes, the two countries' Green parties have also had a notable effect on the public's conception of environmental issues. To date, however, there has been barely any examination of the paradigm, or more specifically, the beliefs of the federal and state/provincial Canadian and Australian Greens, let alone a comparative analysis of the two countries' set of Green parties. Hence, I provide a paradigmatic, comparative analysis of the Green parties of Canada and Australia, most substantially, via the interpretive approach which identifies the ethnographic writer/researcher as, on balance, a part of and not entirely removed from the research study (hence, the use of the word 'I' throughout the dissertation). I argue that the recent scholarly publications detailing the nature of the Australian and Canadian Greens do not offer a paradigmatic examination or comparative analysis of the two countries' Green parties, and accordingly, I attempt to fill this gap in the literature. Moreover, I ask if the Greens of Australia and Canada share similar or different paradigmatic positions. My findings reveal that the two countries' Green parties share a common belief system, and to varying degrees all value, for instance, environmental protection, social justice, interdependence, diversity, and nonviolence. This said, I offer three notable differences. Several of the Australian Green parties advocate plantation forestry, which is in direct contrast to the philosophy of ecoforestry ‚ÄövÑvÆ an ecosystem-based interpretation of forestry advocated by most if not all of Canada's Greens. Together, the Green parties of Australia recognise the relationship between physical activity, health, and societal well-being more often than their Canadian counterparts. Generally speaking, Canada's Greens lean towards principle-based politics (though, the Newfoundland Green Party is somewhat of an exception), while Australia's Greens tend to embrace constituency-based politics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".