Executive Styles in Canada: Cabinet Structures and Leadership Practices in Canadian Government
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive Styles in Canada: Cabinet Structures and Leadership Practices in Canadian Government, Luc Bernier, Keith Brownsey and Michael Howlett, eds., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, for The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, 2005, pp. xiii, 282. Executive Styles in Canada is a welcome addition to the literature on Canadian political leadership and provincial politics, essentially raising the question of the power of the premier, central agencies, and executive council in each of the Canadian provinces. To this end the editors have organized the book in 13 chapters. The book begins with a survey of the whole debate over “court government” raised by Donald Savoie, and the development model of Canadian cabinets advanced by Stefan Dupré and Christopher Dunn. The second chapter is given over to Savoie to make his case with respect to the federal government. His argument, by now familiar, is that by the 1990s the real power in the federal government is in the hands of the “prime minister and a small group of carefully selected courtiers” (17). Executive dominance of the legislature in the Westminster model has given way to even greater centralization. Power flows not from ministers, but from the prime minister. While Savoie does not address the seeming anomaly of the Paul Martin minority government of 2004–05, in which the House of Commons and even the opposition parties suddenly became relevant again, one gets the sense that he would argue that this is a temporary development rather than a more durable departure from the direction of the last 30 years.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".