MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008663066 · doi:10.7202/1013983ar

Canadian Science Policy and the Retreat from Transformative Politics: The Final Years of the Science Council of Canada, 1985-1992

2013· article· en· W2008663066 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
G. Brent Clowater

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResearch, Science, and Academia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersStrong
KeywordsPublic administrationPoliticsTransformative learningPolitical scienceState (computer science)Agency (philosophy)SovereigntyPublic policyGovernment (linguistics)Interventionism (politics)SociologyLawInternational relationsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Science Council of Canada (1966-1992) operated as an ‘arms-length’ agency providing science policy advice and recommendations to the federal government. The Council was always a voice for state interventionism. In the late 1970s, it turned to the politically sensitive issue of industrial policy and advocated a nationalistic, ‘transformative politics’ through its defense of technological sovereignty. An examination of its research and policy recommendations, and the controversies they excited, reveals that the Council’s struggle against new policy trends in its final years paralleled larger transitions in public perceptions of the role of government in Canadian society. Its 1992 dissolution symbolized Canada’s reorientation from a state-directed to a market-oriented approach to science and technology policy-making. This paper reviews the Council’s guiding philosophy and discusses its history within two larger contexts: the Canadian political debate over continentalism, and evolving conceptions of science, technology, and innovation, and the prospects for their management.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativelow
gptScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0370.024
Scholarly communication0.0200.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Science and technology studies

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and MedicineSame topicResearch, Science, and AcademiaCategoryScience and technology studiesFrench-language works237,207