Rituals of Rhetoric and Nationhood: The Liberal Anti-Deficit Campaign (1994-1998)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1993, the Liberals came to power on a platform of job creation. Yet soon after their ascendancy, their election promise to invest in more jobs faded; deficit reduction became their foremost preoccupation. In spite of their altered political priorities, and in spite of their announcement that deep cuts in government expenditures were imminent, the Liberals won substantial public support for their fiscal actions. Like all moments of crisis, Canada’s accruing debt in 1994/1995 was potentially double edged; it could well have incurred a political disaster for the Liberals. Instead, it was exploited as an opportunity. The deficit crisis of the 1990s became a significant moment of Canadian consensus-building in which the Liberal Party, once known for its Keynesian posture, sought to redefine the national economic psyche in function of a rising monetarist trend. This essay seeks to account for the success of this ideological venture, and argues that the Liberals’ “marketing strategy" can be analysed in terms of a symbolic language of nationalism—a discourse whose persuasive power resides in its archetypal narrative of sacrifice and redemption.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".