MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033469673 · doi:10.1017/s0008423909990424

Worth the Wait: Determinants of Ministerial Appointment in Canada, 1935–2008

2009· article· en· W2033469673 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew Kerby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentPolitical scienceHumanitiesPoliticsLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract.The subject of ministerial career paths is neglected in the Canadian political science canon. The existing literature, data and methods are for the most part descriptive and require updating. This article addresses this deficit by focusing on the topic of ministerial appointments in the Canadian federal parliament. An event history model is developed to estimate the “hazard” of ministerial appointment for all government party members of Parliament for the period 1935–2008. Existing theories and explanations for ministerial appointments and their relationship to constitutional conventions and political principles are systematically tested using a series of variables identified in the Canadian and comparative literature. The paper concludes with recommendations for further research and integration with complementary country-specific and comparative research programs in the field of ministerial career paths. Résumé.Le parcours de carrière ministérielle est un sujet négligé dans la convention de la science politique canadienne. La littérature, les données et les méthodes existantes sont majoritairement descriptives et requièrent une mise à jour. Cet article tente de combler cette lacune en étudiant les nominations ministérielles au gouvernement fédéral canadien. Un modèle de survie couvrant la période de 1935 à 2008 est mis au point afin d'évaluer le risque des nominations ministérielles pour tous les députés du parti politique au gouvernement. Les théories et interprétations actuellement utilisées pour déterminer les nominations ministérielles ainsi que leur affinité avec les conventions constitutionnelles et les préceptes politiques sont méthodiquement analysées à l'aide d'une suite de données reconnues dans la littérature canadienne et comparative. Finalement le document préconise la poursuite des recherches et un rapprochement avec les programmes de recherche comparatifs et propres au pays en matière de parcours de carrière ministérielle.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations74
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207