W.A. Bogart, <em>Good Government? Good Citizens? Courts, Politics, and Markets in a Changing Canada.</em> Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005, 264 pp., $85.00 hardcover/$29.95 paper.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examining the substantive political, legal, and socioeconomic changes underway in Canada and describing examples of how despite these changes, the concepts of peace, order, and good government remain vital to the lives of citizens, W. A. Bogart's Good Government?Good Citizens? is valuable in understanding the changes to the status quo in the contemporary context.The book compellingly challenges the main arguments that are behind the changes to Canadian society.Unfortunately, when discussing these issues he goes off topic repeatedly by relying on the practices and outcomes of the United States to make his arguments and leaves unexamined whether the state of disarray in representative politics is justified.The central purposes of this book are to document why Canada needs rehabilitation and to explain the most hopeful situation for this rehabilitation.Part One, "The Society That Was", examines the traditional roles of courts, markets, and politics in Canada before changes to these roles began in the 1980s.Part Two, "Courts, Politics, and Markets in a Society in Transition", shows why and how the influence of representative politics is declining, while courts and markets are increasingly used to fill this power vacuum.Part Three, "Some Examples of a Changing Canada", illustrates and examines changes in the areas concerning Aboriginals, cyberspace, education, and aging.The book compellingly dispels the illusion that courts, cyberspace, and markets are solutions to the disarray in representative politics.This is important when the claim that markets and legal rights are legitimate alternatives to resolve social problems is gaining favour over using politics and government to accomplish this end.The book supports the view that Canadians' time and energy are best spent trying to move toward representative
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".