Sexual Diversity, Religious Moblization, and Moral Traditionalism in the Ontario Party System, 1986-2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1980s began a gradual process of faith realignment in Ontario’s provincial politics. Where once Liberals and Progressive Conservatives were drawing disproportionate support from Catholics and Protestants, the PCs came to serve as a pole of attraction for religious traditionalists across denomination, a position they still occupy. Attracting and retaining this constituency presented a challenge similar to that facing their federal counterpart. The socially conservative leanings of the party’s caucus might have translated into signaling support for this electoral constituency on the abortion issue, but the party’s leadership has resolutely avoided that issue. It was easier, and for a time less electorally risky, to stake out a conservative position on sexual diversity issues. After the 2011 election there seemed fewer opportunities to do so, and more electoral costs. This does not eliminate the challenge facing the PCs in retaining an important core of supporters, and therefore does not eliminate faith as a factor in provincial electoral politics, but religion is playing an even subtler role in the future than it has until very recently.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".