Polarized Pluralism in the Canadian Party System: Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, June 5, 2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.The Canadian party system is an example “polarized pluralism,” whose key feature is domination by a party of the centre. Centrist domination induces centrifugal tendencies elsewhere in the system. Polarized pluralism accounts for several of the system's peculiar features: three-party competition in individual ridings, contrary to the predictions of Duverger's Law; the existence and episodic dynamics of sectional parties; boom and bust cycles in Conservative party electoral history; and the large gaps between federal and provincial outcomes within many provinces. But domination by a centrist party itself demands explanation. Résumé.Le système canadien des partis politiques exemplifie le «pluralisme polarisé», dont l'élément clé est la force dominante d'un parti du centre. Une telle domination induit des tendances centrifuges ailleurs dans le système. Pour sa part, le pluralisme polarisé explique plusieurs éléments du système canadien : la présence de trois partis compétitifs au niveau de la circonscription, malgré les prédictions du Duverger; l'existence même et la dynamique des partis sectionalistes; l'alternance entre force et faiblesse dans l'histoire du Parti conservateur; et les grands écarts qui se présentent dans plusieurs provinces entre les élections fédérales et les élections provinciales. Dans ce contexte, la force d'un parti centriste se doit d'être expliquée.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.003 |
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".