Adventurers and Opportunists: The Social Credit Party in the Saskatchewan election of 1938
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the course of Canadian political history, many prairie populist movements have developed in an attempt to address the concerns of western Canadians. Two examples of these populist movements are the Social Credit Party, which was predominantly successful in forming government in Alberta, and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), the precursor of today’s New Democratic Party and well-known for its implementation of Medicare under Saskatchewan CCF premier Tommy Douglas. However, there are elements of western populist movements that are not well known and have not been documented to a significant extent. The Social Credit Party, for example, is known for its charismatic leader, William Aberhart, and his landslide victory in Alberta’s 1935 election; however, Social Credit’s appeal beyond Alberta has not been well documented. In the Saskatchewan general election of 1938, Social Credit swept into the province in an attempt to gain power and implement its monetary reform policies, believing that Saskatchewan, like Alberta, would be a good fit for Social Credit as both provinces were suffering from the Great Depression. This thesis will examine Social Credit and the 1938 Saskatchewan provincial election. It will also discuss why Social Credit did not have success in this election, and the factors that contributed to this lack of victory. It will also examine the other political actors during this election campaign, and why the Liberal Party was able to achieve re-election.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".