Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment expliquer la réélection, en1999, du Parti conservateur ontarien, parti dont les politiques furent à l’origine d’une polarisation sans précédent de la vie politique en Ontario ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous comparons les résultats d’une enquête menée en1999à ceux d’une série d’enquêtes réalisées entre1977et1981. Notre analyse démontre que la victoire néoconservatrice en Ontario ne reflète en rien un virage à droite de l’opinion publique. De fait, les résultats ne montrent aucune indication qu’il y a eu, au cours de cette période, une montée des positions conservatrices. L’élection de1999a cependant eu comme conséquence une polarisation idéologique inédite et profonde entre les partisans des trois principaux partis politiques provinciaux. Nous soutenons que le virage néoconservateur de l’Ontario fut en fait le fruit d’un coup d’État au sein même de l’élite du Parti conservateur.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".