Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Studies of the local organizations of Canadian political parties often neglect those organizations' small leadership groups, the local executives. This article explores and develops a classification of constituency association executives. Interviews and participant observation in the Liberal party's constituency associations reveal that executives differ in their personnel, internal relations, organization, leadership and permeability. The result of this analysis is the development of two distinct types of executives: professional and sociable. Preliminary analysis suggests that political factors—local electoral strength and the presence of members of Parliament—play a crucial role in determining the development of professional executives. Résumé.L'étude des organisations locales des partis politiques canadiens tend à négliger le leadership de ces petites organisations, soit les comités exécutifs de comté. Cet article explore le sujet et établit une classification de ces comités. La conduite d'entrevues et une observation participative au sein des associations de circonscription du Parti libéral révèlent que les comités exécutifs diffèrent dans leur gestion des ressources humaines, leurs relations internes, leur organisation, leur leadership et leur perméabilité. Les résultats de ces analyses permettent de dégager deux types de comité exécutif de comté, soit le type social et le type professionnel. Des analyses préliminaires permettent aussi de suggérer que des facteurs politiques – la force du parti dans la circonscription et la présence d'un élu au Parlement – jouent un rôle crucial dans la formation d'un comité exécutif de type professionnel.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".