Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable democratic systems are characterised by the persistence and distinctiveness of political subcultures which offer alternatives to the status quo. This case study describes the New Democratic sub-culture in terms of its persistence and distinctiveness. The data was drawn from a survey of New Democratic activists in the Vancouver area. The concept of political socialization was used to examine the persistence of the New Democratic subculture. Primary and secondary agents of socialization provide continuity of sub-cultural values overtime; primary agents such as family and peer groups socialize New Democrats to sub-cultural values, while secondary agents provide socialization both to the general political culture, which is primarily liberal democratic, and to values which are consonant with the organic-socialist New Democratic sub-culture. New Democrats are strongly committed to their sub-culture, but seem to be attracted to the liberal culture in some degree. The liberal value of equality of opportunity seems to be particularly attractive to New Democrats. But the New Democratic sub-culture is distinctive in the very strong value placed upon the ordinary working person's welfare. When New Democrats contrast themselves with other sub-cultures, they see themselves as the party of the working class, the underdog, while other parties are for doctors, bankers, and the status quo. The study of political culture, especially of political sub-cultures which together make up the general political culture of a system, requires more study of two problems which must be examined together. First, it is necessary to establish a taxonomy of the values which constitute a sub-culture. Second, the process of socialization to those values must be studied in a manner that will enable the researcher to make use of that taxonomy of cultural values. An ideal research strategy would combine ideographic testing with small group methods. Political activists provide an excellent laboratory for this kind of study. Once we know more about the content of political culture and the way in which it is modified in the process of socialization, we will be able to study the interaction of political sub-cultures in a much more systematic way.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".