Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the great myths in the study of British Columbia politics is the dominant view that the rise of the W. A. C. Bennett administration in 1952 introduced an era of incompetent and short-sighted political leadership.Richard Simeon, in his study of federal-provincial relations, singled out Bennett's "personalized style" as being important in explaining the province's poor record in defending provincial interests during intergovernmental negotiations.2 Walter Young and Terence Morley depict the Bennett administration as being an "amateur government."3 Donald Smiley reports that the Social Credit leadership had "no vision, no plan, no real urge, to remake society.In spite of its constant appeals to morality, Social Credit is at heart the pursuit of power divorced from purpose." 4 And Martin Robin, Bennett's greatest critic, suggests : Past Liberal critics of the government party, confused and dazzled by Social Credit's sometimes idiosyncratic style prefer to define Social Credit not as a political and legislative coalition which represents different groups and balances one interest against the other, but as an unpredictable bond of latter-day Poujadists and political nihilists who have no purpose in mind except to retain power and do so by cynically waging war on all established elites whether of the left or right.The Socialist critique abjures both views and defines Social Credit in a more traditional way as primarily a spokesman and representative of the established economic elites, both within and without the province.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".