MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609655425 · doi:10.5931/djim.v13i1.6935

The Rise of Populist Conservatism and Public Service Management

2017· article· en· W2609655425 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nicole Saulnier

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResentmentPopulismPublic servicePublic administrationPoliticsConservatismGovernment (linguistics)DemocracyNeutralityTransparency (behavior)Political sciencePolitical economySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rise of conservative populism in the United States is evident with the election of Donald Trump whose campaign focused on a fear of otherness, a resentment of elites (including bureaucrats), and an emphasis on self-interest. This paper will focus on populist policies and actions introduced during Stephen Harper’s tenure in government. Many of these policies were directed specifically towards the public service including the reduction of public servants, unilateral changes to labour laws, and the politicization of the public service through a proposed niqab ban. While the influence of populist conservative policies has caused noticeable resentments between public servants and the Conservative Party, public servants should reconsider their position within democracy as not focused on their compatibility with the government of the day, but rather with their adherence to the values of inclusion, fairness, and neutrality. While the public service must constantly adapt to the will of the political branch of government including more populist governments, these core values should be celebrated through active implementation and leadership to aid in the development of a positive relationship with both the political arm of government and the public more broadly. These values provide a means for individual public servants to invest their motivation into values that they can treat as fundamental to their role in democracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.044
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary ManagementSame topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and USFrench-language works237,207