A study of the use of plebiscites and referendums by the Province of British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a study of the use of plebiscites and referendums by the Province of British Columbia to discover: why they were used; what were the advantages and/or disadvantages of their use; and what significance their use to the system of responsible government. Before any conclusions could be drawn on these questions, it was necessary first to define their place in political theory. Then it was necessary to examine each plebiscite to discover what its circumstances were; what, if any, pressure groups were active pro or con the subject of the plebiscite; how did the political parties react to the plebiscite and what degree of public interest was aroused by it. To obtain this information, research was conducted into private letters and papers of the premiers concerned, if available; leading newspapers for the periods concerned; party programmes and pamphlets if available; government documents and interviews with or letters from former party members and the staffs of the Chief Electoral Officer's Department; the Attorney-General's Department and the Provincial Secretary's Department. Most of the material used was found in the University of British Columbia Library, the Vancouver Public Library, the Provincial Library, the Vancouver Archives and the Provincial Archives. There was much more material available for the plebiscites of 1909, 1916 and 1920 than for those of 1924, 1937 and 1952. Where scarcity of material prevented the drawing of valid conclusions or observations, it has been noted.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".