Misrecognized Materialists: Social Movements in Canadian Constitutional Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Misrecognized Materialists: Social Movements in Canadian Constitutional Politics , Matt James, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006, pp. xii, 170. For any Canadian political scientist it can be incredibly challenging to present new approaches to constitutional research and memorable, quotable lines capturing the results. Matt James contributes to the legacy of memorable Canadian constitutional research self-deprecating jokes with his opening line “constitutional politics is a Canadian synonym for futility” (1). James's contribution does not end with his subtle yet subversive observation of the Canadian constitutional story. Misrecognized Materialists: Social Movements in Canadian Constitutional Politics is an important addition to a number of Canadian political science fields. James not only presents a novel approach to Canada's constitutional evolution but also produces provocative and significant empirical and analytical material concerning Canadian social movements. In addition, while pursuing his empirical goals, James presents a fascinating historical discursive tale of parliamentary committees, tinged with off-colour comments from tradition-seeking senators (see Harry Hays, 84–85) and surprisingly ambitious positions from over-zealous witnesses (throughout the work). Selecting committee testimonies as the main form of primary research and empirical evidence appropriately fits James' theoretical challenges to Ronald Inglehart's New Politics theory and others' reliance on post-material explanatory tools in constructing social movements' role in constitutional 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".