Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social role of universities has been subject to a lengthy debate as to whether those who teach in the academy are system legitimizing conservatives or radicals helping to generate critical thinking and challenge to the status quo. Despite this controversy, neoconservatives in the U.S. have used the evidence of professors’ strong support for the Democratic candidates as an indication of universities being dominated by left-leaning radicals. The aim of this paper is to evaluate political affiliations of Canadian university professors, based on a national survey conducted in 2000. The study shows that Canadian professors’ political affiliation can be identified as left and/or right depending on how we conceptualize the political orientation of political parties. Although, university professors tended to vote to the Liberal Party more than other parties, they themselves are more likely to view this party as a centrist party. Moreover, the study highlights a complex and non-monolithic picture of the Canadian academy. University professors are not politically homogenous but that their party vote depends on the prestige of their university, their discipline, gender, ethnicity, marital status, generation and extent of their own liberalism. Résumé. Le rôle social des universités fait depuis longtemps l’objet d’un débat sur l’orientation politique des professeurs : sont-ils des conservateurs qui légitiment le statu quo, ou des radicaux qui aident à créer une pensée critique qui le conteste? Le but du présent article est d’évaluer les affiliations politiques des professeurs canadiens telles qu’elles se dégagent d’un sondage national effectué en 2000. L’étude montre que leur affiliation politique peut être décrite comme de gauche ou de droite, selon la conception qu’on a de l’orientation des partis politiques. Ils votent plus souvent pour les Libéraux que pour d’autres partis, les voyant comme un parti du centre. D’ailleurs, l’étude donne des universités canadiennes un tableau complexe et nullement monolithique. Les professeurs n’ont pas de vues homogènes, ils votent en partie selon le prestige de leur université, leur discipline, leur sexe, leurs antécédents ethniques, leur situation de famille, leur âge et leur attitude envers le libéralisme.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".