Staking the Progressive Centre: An Ideational Analysis of Manitoba Party Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional accounts treat the evolution of Manitoba’s political party system as the product of three confluent forces: region, class, and ethnicity. Observers cite divisions between rural and urban, north and south, British and non-British, and owners, farmers, and workers as the principal cleavages around which parties have built their support. According to this conventional wisdom, the party assembling the largest socio-demographic coalition achieves the greatest level of success. This study supplements these existing accounts by revealing the importance of party ideology in forging these alliances. As demonstrated through an analysis of campaign literature dating back to 1958, the key to success in Manitoba party politics lies in crafting moderate platforms that eschew the extremes of left and right. By emphasizing “progress” and pursuing a middle-of-the-road path, leading politicians—like Duff Roblin, Edward Schreyer, and Gary Doer—have enabled their parties to reach across the socio-demographic divisions that mark the province’s political community. These findings suggest the “progressive centre” is the fertile middle ground of Manitoba party politics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".