The Freedom of the State? Recent NDP Governments and a Reply to the Globalization Sceptics*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un grand nombre d'anciens partisans du Nouveau Parti démocratique, particulièrement les organisations syndicales et les défenseurs des pauvres, ont déclaré avoir été abandonnés par les gouvernements NPD en Ontario et en Colombie‐Britannique pendant les années 1990. Cet article examine cette critique à la lumière du meilleur argument théorique disponible pour penser que les politiques du NPD auraient pu être beaucoup plus sociales sans aboutir à réduire L'investissement privé. L'article avance que ce cas théorique alternatif, avancé par quelques importants «sceptiques de la mondialisation », est imparfait sur plusieurs points, et conclut alors que le NPD n'était pas capable de mieux servir les intérêts des travailleurs et des pauvres dans ces deux provinces. Many erstwhile supporters of the New Democratic Party, particularly organized labour and poverty advocates, claimed that they were betrayed by NDP governments in Ontario and British Columbia in the 1990s. This paper considers this charge in light of the best available theoretical case for thinking that the NDP's policies could have been significantly more social democratic without leading to reduced private investment. The paper finds this alternative theoretical case–articulated by leading “globalization sceptics”–to be flawed in several ways, and so concludes that the NDP could not have served workers and the poor in these two provinces much better than they did.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".