Elite Attitudes on the Centralization of Power in Canadian Political Executives: A Survey of Former Canadian Provincial and Federal Cabinet Ministers, 2000–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.In contemporary Canada, the idea of the powerful first minister is widely acknowledged. The recent debate has focused on Donald Savoie's thesis that the concentration of power to the centre has accelerated and ministers have effectively lost their influence on decision making in cabinet. This article identifies two research gaps. First, the study combines both the experiences of federal and provincial cabinet ministers to construct an understanding of Canadian cabinet decision making at both levels of government. Second, the research investigates the new generation of cabinet ministers; no study has yet consulted ministers of the 2000–2010 decade. Résumé.Dans le Canada contemporain, l'idée du premier ministre puissant est largement reconnue. Le débat récent s'est fixé sur la thèse de Donald Savoie que la concentration de pouvoir au centre a accéléré de le et les ministres ont perdu efficacement leur influence sur la prise de décision dans le cabinet. Cet article identifie deux écarts de recherche. Premièrement, l'étude combine les deux les expériences de ministres fédéraux et provinciaux pour construire une compréhension de prise de décision ministérielle Canadienne aux deux niveaux de gouvernement. Deuxième, la recherche examine la nouvelle génération de ministres – aucune étude a consulté pourtant des ministres de la 2000–2010 décennie.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".