Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of British Columbia has been marked by persistent attempts to reform provincial politics. Since 1920, these have frequently taken the form of advocating the election of an efficient non-partisan government unrestricted by organizational ties to federal parties or political machines. One significant attempt to achieve this goal may be seen in the history of the Provincial Party. Organized in 1922, the party ran fortyone candidates in the 1924 provincial general election. It elected three members to the Legislative Assembly, gained 24.2% of the popular vote, helped defeat both the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties and was credited with deciding the result in thirty-three of the forty-eight provincial ridings. Though the party soon disintegrated, its limited success offers evidence that, even in a period of relative economic and social stability, British Columbia voters were not committed to the traditional two party system. A reform party, promising the elimination of machine politics and governmental inefficiency, could obtain considerable electoral support. The Provincial Party had its origin in the convergence of two political developments in British Columbia in 1922. One of these was the failure of a group of dissatisfied Conservatives to force the resignation of the party leader, William John Bowser. The other was a movement among the United Farmers of British Columbia into the field of direct political action. The frustration of their individual efforts led to union and the formation of the Provincial Party with the first group providing most of the leadership and the second, a nucleus of popular support. Discontent within the Conservative party had been growing for a number of years. Bowser, a Vancouver lawyer and long-time power in the government of Sir Richard McBride, had become party leader and
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.020 |
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".