MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500646855 · doi:10.3138/jcs.40.3.135

Explaining Voting System Reform in Canada, 1874 to 1960

2006· article· en· W1500646855 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVotingPoliticsPolitical economyEthnic groupPolitical sciencePublic administrationSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay explores the efforts to change Canada’s traditional plurality voting system to either majority or proportional voting systems at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels between 1874 and 1960. Specifically, it will provide evidence showing that appeals to populist culture, regional disaffection, and the efforts of individual and party reformers are not sufficient in explaining why, when, and where reforms have occurred. Instead, this essay will demonstrate that serious interest in, and the successful adoption of, majority and proportional voting system reforms in Canada was primarily driven by class factors, specifically the class interests of Canadian farmers and the perceived threat that various labour and socialist parties posed to Canada’s major political parties (and by extension their economic supporters) at different points in Canadian history. By surveying three broad periods of reform efforts, the essay demonstrates that while many different factors—reformer sentiment, party needs, ethnic tensions—may have fueled interest in voting system reforms in Canada, only organized political threats based on class issues motivated any serious or long-standing reform.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it