J. Rick Ponting. the Nisga'a Treaty: Polling Dynamics and Political Communication in Comparative Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
J. Rick Ponting. The Nisga'a Treaty: Polling Dynamics and Political Communication in Comparative Context. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2006. 194 pp. $29.95 sc. Relations between Aboriginals and the greater society continue to be most delicate. J. Rick Ponting provides a well documented and analytical comparative piece, detailing the processing of public opinion of the Nisga'a Treaty in British Columbia and the official reconciliation process by political powers in Australia. More broadly, this work speaks to the intersection between public opinion polling and issues related to democratic politics and leadership. Specifically, it poses some key questions: how should government use public opinion polling and should it be responsive to it or lead and shape it? The main case study is the Nisga'a Treaty. The focus is on the polling and advertising events from the summer and fall of 1998, during which the Nisga'a Treaty was signed, ratified by the Nisga'a people, and the provincial legislature was recalled to deal with the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act (Bill 51). The political ethnography documents the extensive public opinion polling and advertising campaign, with a thorough look at the manner in which this was handled within government circles. The second case study serves as a complement to the Nisga'a Treaty study, examining events in Australia in late 1999 and early 2000 in preparation for the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. In the case of British Columbia, for Premier Glen Clark and the New Democratic Party, Nisga'a was the number one issue. Selling the treaty was a high priority as the government sought to use it to regain its waning popularity in the province. Clark played a leadership role in the process and used significant human and financial resources to ensure its success, assigning some of his top people to the project, including his own Deputy Minister, polling experts, and advertising specialists. About $7.6 million was spent on the implementation effort, which included polling, advertising, and public information campaigning to gauge public opinion and sell the treaty to the public. The stakes were high as the treaty faced strong opposition from high-profile individuals in the public, media, and political sphere. In Australia, the political environment was quite different: Indigenous issues were not a top priority, and relations between the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the federal government were strained. Prime Minister John Howard was opposed to a fundamental part of the reconciliation process, namely, a government apology to the Indigenous people of Australia. He played much less of a leadership role in reconciliation than did Clark in British Columbia. The unified New Democratic Party government, in contrast to the less cohesive relations in the Australian Commonwealth government, yielded a variety of different outcomes; however, the generation and processing of public opinion data by each government was quite similar in many ways, governed by socio-political factors at every step. Methodologically, Ponting's work is a political ethnography drawing on numerous sources to provide a fair account of the events that transpired, including interviews with politicians, bureaucrats, key non-government players, as well as documents from public sources including web sites and those accessed through the Freedom of Information Act. This comparative historical work has roots in symbolic interactionist theory and social constructionist theory, particularly Hubert Blumer's constructivist approach to examining public opinion. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".