The Americanization of Canadian Political Science? The Doctoral Training of Canadian Political Science Faculty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fifty years ago, Canadian political science (CPS) debated whether there was an “Americanization problem” in the discipline. Today, the idea does not have the same force. This article revisits the debate by focusing on one of the main points of concerns: the doctoral training of CPS faculty. The article presents an original dataset of tenure and tenure-track faculty at CPS departments. It then provides analysis of where these tenure and tenure-track faculty received their doctorates, by sub-field and rank, paying particular attention to the country of doctoral training. Unlike fifty years ago, Canadian-trained scholars form a much larger share of the professoriate. There is no evidence of a trend towards more American-trained scholars among recent hires of assistant professors. However, the results also suggest a continuing status hierarchy between the two countries. It concludes by arguing that CPS needs to be more reflective about its position within this status hierarchy.
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.
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 | 0.025 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it