Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates how ethnoracial minorities fared in getting elected as MPs in the Canadian general elections of 2006 and 2008—an analysis guided by descriptive characterizations and interpretative themes discerned from studies of minority parliamentary representation over the 1993–2004 period. This paper also examines more specific categories that make up the minority population, thus allowing for perspectives on both inter-group differences and longitudinal effects. A key finding is that for minorities taken as a whole, as well as for the overall category of visible minorities, the 2006 and 2008 results fit an already-established pattern of quite modest increases in minority representation (as in 2006) interrupted by occasional decline (as in 2008). In addition, for both visible minorities as a group and for most of their constituent subcategories, the overwhelming evidence is of persisting representation deficits which are defined by MP percentages that are less than the corresponding population percentages. There is also evidence that the association of minority MPs with the Liberal party, observed as waning over the 1993–2004 period, continued to do so in 2006 and 2008. Dans cet article nous examinons comment les minorités ethno-raciales ont su faire élire leurs membres au Parlement lors des élections générales canadiennes de 2006 et de 2008 – une analyse guidée par des caractérisations descriptives et des thèmes interprétatifs, tels que discernés dans des études sur la représentation des minorités au Parlement au cours de la période 1993–2004. Nous approfondissons aussi la recherche en examinant des catégories plus spécifiques qui composent la population minoritaire, ouvrant ainsi des perspectives à la fois sur les différences intergroupes et sur les effets longitudinaux. Une conclusion clé relève que pour les minorités, aussi bien celles prises dans leur ensemble que celles vues comme globalement visibles, les résultats de 2006 et de 2008 entrent dans un format déjà établi d’augmentation fort modeste de la représentation minoritaire (comme en 2006), interrompue par un déclin (comme en 2008). De plus, autant pour les minorités visibles en tant que groupe que pour la plupart des catégories qui les composent, l’évidence qui domine absolument est celle de la persistance des déficits de représentation qui se définissent en pourcentage de MP inférieur à celui de la population correspondante. Il est aussi évident que l’association des MP issus des minorités avec le parti Libéral a marqué un affaiblissement au cours de la période 1993–2004, ce qui a continué en 2006 et en 2008.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".