Rendering Unto Caesar: Catholics, the State, and the Idea of a Christian Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent Canadian federal election was filled with many surprises, including the marking of a shift in traditional voting patterns among Canadian Christians. On April 23 rd , one week before the vote, an Angus-Reid Survey for the Toronto Star indicated that "50 per cent of selfdescribed English-speaking Catholics outside of Quebec" would vote for the Conservative Party on 2 May 2011. The Liberals, who historically had been the party of choice for Roman Catholics, and who had boasted at least four Catholic prime ministers since 1968, would glean only twentyfive percent support from English-speaking Catholics. The NDP and Greens could count on the support of nineteen percent of Catholics and four percent respectively. While the poll only surveyed 2,269 Englishspeaking Catholic adults, it still claimed a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percent. These numbers aside, it appeared that Catholics within Canada were not less interested in engaging in Canadian politics and the myriad of issues at play in the public square; they were simply moving to the right and placing their trust in a prime minister who was openly an evangelical Christian and whose party, at least in some quarters, proposed a more socially conservative agenda, informed by traditional Judaeo-Christian values. 1 Therein, in the larger national debate about "What Canada Is, or What Canada Must Represent," this poll signals, perhaps, that one of Canada's largest religious groups is holding firmly to a more traditional notion of Canada as a Christian country and seeking new partisan ways to achieve this vision.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".