MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078592786 · doi:10.1017/s0008423905229979

Pro-Family Politics and Fringe Parties in Canada

2005· article· en· W2078592786 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Farney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyArgument (complex analysis)PoliticsPolitical scienceFace (sociological concept)SociologyLawPolitical economySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pro-Family Politics and Fringe Parties in Canada , Chris MacKenzie, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005, pp. 292. MacKenzie's title is misleading, for the major focus of the book is not pro-family parties across Canada. Rather, he uses an intensive study of a single provincial pro-family party—the Family Coalition Party of British Columbia (FCP)—as a starting point for an ambitious and successful attempt to chart the conceptual morass that lies between the literatures on social movements and political parties. He makes a strong argument that small, ideologically driven parties on either end of the ideological spectrum face two distinct sets of challenges: those of political parties and those of social movements. Understanding how this double jeopardy affects the success of what he terms party/movements is important. In this respect, the book is an important contribution to the literature on what political scientists more usually call minor parties. The second focus of the book is new right ideology in the English-speaking world, with the FCP standing in as an example of this ideology. Here, the book is shakier, as it is not clear that the FCP is representative of this ideology or that MacKenzie is entirely objective in approaching this aspect of his topic.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207