Alignment, Realignment, and Dealignment in Canada: The View From Above
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.The Canadian party system exhibits both “stable dealignment,” defined as directionless volatility and relative stability. But the boundary between the system's orderly and disorderly parts is not that clear in conventional wisdom, which contrasts big, inclusive parties with small parties representing ideas or interests. In fact, the relatively stable parties have been the NDP and the Liberals, in contrast to the Conservatives and a rotating cast of province- or region-specific insurgents. Volatility is a feature mainly of Quebec and the West and is greater in federal than in provincial elections. But geographic divergence is greater in provincial elections. The paper proposes a research program to account for Canada's coexistence of opposites. Résumé.Le système de partis politiques canadien présente à la fois un «désalignement stable», défini comme une volatilité sans direction, et une relative stabilité. Cependant, la frontière entre les parties ordonnées et désordonnées du système n'est pas stylisée comme le veut la sagesse populaire qui contraste grands partis inclusifs et petits partis représentant des idées ou des intérêts particuliers. En fait, ce sont le NPD et les libéraux qui représentent les partis relativement stables du système en opposition au Parti conservateur et à une série de partis « insurgés » spécifiques à une province ou à une région. La volatilité est quant à elle principalement une caractéristique du Québec et des provinces de l'Ouest tout en étant plus présente sur le plan fédéral que provincial. La divergence géographique est toutefois plus grande aux élections provinciales. Cet article propose donc un programme de recherche afin de mieux expliquer la coexistence de ces contraires au Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".