La Canada West Foundation et le Manning Centre for Building Democracy : deux think tanks à la défense de l’Ouest canadien et de la droite*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte propose une analyse historique et thématique de deux importants think tanks albertains qui ont pour vocation de défendre les intérêts de l’Ouest canadien, soit la Canada West Foundation (CWF) et le Manning Centre for Building Democracy (MCBD). Il s’agit notamment d’examiner le contexte politique dans lequel les deux organisations ont pris leur essor. Nous verrons en effet que la naissance de la CWF s’inscrit dans un moment où on assiste à la montée du régionalisme dans les années 1970, alors que celle du MCBD s’effectue dans le contexte, au milieu des années 2000, de recherche de nouvelles voies pour les conservateurs albertains et canadiens. Nous terminons le texte avec une évaluation de leur influence respective ainsi que de leur visibilité, plus importante pour la CWF que pour le MCBD, dans l’espace politique et médiatique canadien.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".