Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to verify Robert MacGregor Dawson's old hypotheses that a political party wins a number of provincial/state elections while it is in opposition at the federal level, finally culminating in a federal win, and then that it starts to lose provincial/state elections to another party, and that the cycle starts all over again, for the two long-established federations of Canada and Australia.The data of the elections(federal and provincial/state)held between 1980 and 2008 are used for this comparative study.The findings support the theories linking federalism with political parties in both cases.The phenomena depicted in Dawson's model are more pronounced and the federal/state division is more clear-cut in Australia, given its staunch two-party system, while the Canadian party system is more loosely organised in a confederal form.The trend has been accentuated Down Under recently , perhaps because , despite the shorter term of mandate in Australian Parliament(3 years) , federal parties tend to enjoy a longer period of time in office than in earlier decades.Consequently, by the time of eventual party changes in Canberra, there is ample time for the discontents towards the parties in federal government to turn into the forces to elect different parties especially in the outlying states.In state elections, it is a liability for the parties to have their federal wings governing the entire nation, because their link is capitalised on by the parties who are in opposition in Canberra.A series of electoral victories at the state level gradually prepare for their final prevalence in the national capital.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".