In Search of Brokerage and Responsibility: Party Politics in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Many critics describe Canadian political parties as “irresponsible” democratic actors. Viewed largely as “brokerage” organizations, parties are often cited for their failure to provide voters with meaningful alternatives on the ballot. The following analysis challenges these perceptions as they apply to provincial politics—an often-neglected area of party activity in Canada. As a case study of the 2003 Manitoba provincial election, the examination reveals that parties in the province behave more “responsibly” than is commonly assumed by members of the media, academia and the electorate. These findings demand a re-examination of traditional notions of party politics in Canada, with increased attention being devoted to the “supply side” of democracy: the behaviour of the parties themselves. Résumé.Plusieurs critiques décrivent les partis politiques canadiens comme des acteurs démocratiques «irresponsables». Considérés principalement comme des organisations de «courtage», on leur reproche souvent de ne pas offrir aux électeurs des choix bien différenciés sur le bulletin de vote. L'analyse suivante remet en question cette perception au palier de la politique provinciale – un niveau souvent négligé dans l'examenn des partis au Canada. Cette étude des élections provinciales de 2003 au Manitoba révèle que les partis provinciaux se comportent de manière plus «responsable» que ne le laissent entendre les médias, les milieux académiques et l'électorat. Cette conclusion invite à un réexamen des notions traditionnelles sur les partis politiques au Canada jetant une lumière nouvelle sur«l'aspect offre» de la démocratie : le comportement des partis eux-mêmes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".