Re-introducing Structure: An Historical Analysis and Structural Account of Political Cultures in the Prairie Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I conduct an historical structural analysis to explain the preservation of political cultures across the Canadian Prairie Provinces. Taking into account Alberta’s historically conservative climate and bootstrap individualism, Saskatchewan’s historically left-leaning policy environment, and Manitoba’s moderate culture between its two prairie compatriots, I explain how these different cultures have persisted using a “polity-centred” approach. Perhaps the most popular explanation for such a “prairie paradox” is “fragment theory”, or looking at different “waves” of settlers including Loyalists, Americans, and early Ontarians, across the prairies. Scholars like Alan Cairns and Jared Wesley have critiqued this approach, arguing that it is the structure of federalism itself that preserves these cultures over time, or that it is the agency of political parties and their campaign literature that reflects political culture back at their populations. A “polity-centred” approach, as I present it here, synthesizes these two critiques of fragment theory to look at how structures both affect political agents and provide tools to affect political culture in their provinces. This is done through, first, a more general examination of how the Canadian federal structure influences political parties, and second, how political parties use structure to affect discourse in a province and preserve or change the political culture. I conclude that polity-centred approaches should be taken more seriously by sociologists and political scientists when looking at political cultures, and that this approach is useful for examining the cultures of other states and substates.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".