Populism : polder and prairie: The rapid rise and fall of Pim Fortuyn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DUTCH POLITICS HAS A REPUTATION FOR DULLNESS AND STABILITY. But that was hardly the case in 2002, when Pim Fortuyn entered politics. His party came in second in that year's election, although it had not yet been formally founded and Fortuyn himself had been murdered a few days earlier. Yet it now remains to be seen if the party can survive the assassination of its founding father. The election for the European Parliament, to be held in June 2004, may be the final test. Canada is quite different from the Netherlands. A thinly populated geographical giant, a former colony and a rather decentralized federal state, Canada has ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity without much ideological variety, and a majoritarian political system dominated (at least until 1993) by two pragmatic "catch-all" parties. The Netherlands, once a colonial empire but now a densely populated and very small, highly centralized state, is ethnically fairly homogeneous but fragmented along ideological and religious lines, and hence used to proportional representation, ideological mass parties and consociational politics. Yet in recent decades, new parties emerged in both Canada and the Netherlands that shared a remarkable number of features: an ideological mixture of economic neoliberalism, cultural conservatism and democratic populism, along with personal leadership and a more confrontational political style. Perhaps it is more than a coincidence that Canada's populist party grew up on the prairies: flat land, divided into rectangular plots, in many ways similar to the Dutch polders.
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 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".