MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026529813 · doi:10.1177/1354068807083823

Equal Access, Unequal Success — Major and Minor Canadian Parties On the Net

2007· article· en· W2026529813 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueParty Politics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetCyberspacePoliticsPolitical scienceCompetition (biology)Minor (academic)Work (physics)Political economyPublic relationsSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet has been heralded as the most revolutionary technology since the printing press. Within political science, much work centres around the democratizing potential of the Internet. Cyber-optimists argue that the Internet has the capacity to equalize political competition for parties. Other scholars argue that the Internet will not dramatically change the status of minor parties. Politics on the Internet will be `politics as usual'. Empirical support for both theories is mixed. Research has shown that party-centred countries are more likely to become equalized as a result of the Internet than candidate-centred countries. Using data from the 2004 federal election, this article argues that the Internet has not led to an equalization of party competition in Canada. The websites of nine political parties show that despite equal access to the Internet, there is unequal success in cyberspace for Canadian parties.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.284 · 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