MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116960677 · doi:10.1017/s0008423913000632

The Emergence of Parties in the Canadian House of Commons (1867–1908)

2013· article· en· W2116960677 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐François Godbout, Bjørn Høyland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHouse of CommonsOpposition (politics)ParliamentVotingHumanitiesPolitical economyLawSociologyPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study analyses legislative voting in the first ten Canadian Parliaments (1867–1908). The results demonstrate that party unity in the House of Commons dramatically increased over time. From the comparative literature on legislative organization, we identify three factors to explain this trend: partisan sorting, electoral incentives and negative agenda control. Our empirical analysis shows that intraparty conflict is primarily explained by the opposition between Anglo-Celtic/Protestants and French/Catholic members of Parliament. Once lawmakers sort into parties according to their religious affiliations, we observe a sharp increase in voting unity within the Liberal and Conservative caucuses. Ultimately, our results highlight the importance of territorial and socio-cultural conflicts, as well as agenda control, in explaining the emergence of parties as cohesive voting groups in the House of Commons. Résumé. Cette étude analyse le vote législatif dans les dix premiers parlements canadiens (1867–1908). Les résultats démontrent que l'unité partisane à la Chambre des communes a augmenté dramatiquement durant cette période. En nous basant sur les principales théories liées à l'organisation des législatures, nous identifions trois facteurs pour expliquer cette tendance : la classification partisane; les pressions électorales; et le contrôle de l'agenda législatif. Nos analyses empiriques confirment que les conflits intra-partisans au Parlement s'expliquent principalement par l'opposition entre les députés Anglos-Celtiques/Protestants et Francos/Catholiques. À partir du moment où les députés commencent à rejoindre les principaux partis selon leur groupe religieux, nous observons un accroissement important de l'unité législative au sein des caucus libéral et conservateur. Les résultats de cette recherche soulignent l'importance des conflits territoriaux et socioculturels, mais aussi de l'agenda législatif, pour expliquer l'émergence des partis politiques comme groupes cohésifs à la Chambre des communes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207