Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Civil Society? Collective Actors in Canadian Political Life, Miriam Smith, Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2005, pp. 224. A curious thing about Canadian political science is that, compared to its American or British counterparts, it offers very little analysis of collective action outside of political parties. Even the interest groups in Canada don't call themselves interest groups any more. So, when a book on collective actors by a respected scholar like Miriam Smith—who has made significant contributions to the study of Canadian institutionalism and whose book on the lesbian and gay movement is a gem—comes along, it is an event for the field. Because Smith starts the book with a quote from my 1996 article with Jane Jenson on regime shift, I was well invested from the first line and had high expectations that Smith would not only set the macro institutional context that she always does so well, but would provide an insightful analysis of developments in collective action over the past decade that would build on where Jenson and I left off.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 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".