The People and The Nation: The “Thick” and the “Thin” of Right‐Wing Populism in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective While Canada is commonly portrayed as a bastion of political moderation, two influential right‐wing populist (RWP) movements appeared in the past decade. This study examines support for the People's Party of Canada (PPC) and “Ford Nation” of the eponymous Toronto‐based political family, comparing each movement's supporters. Methods Data from the 2014 Toronto Election Study and 2019 Canadian Election Study were analyzed with logistic regression models to assess differences between supporters of each movement. Results Populism as a “thin‐centered ideology” is displayed by the differences between each movement. Ford Nation advanced a suburban‐focused neoliberal populism while the PPC blended libertarianism and civilizationist–nationalist rhetoric. Contrary to both movements’ platforms, PPC supporters did not display significant animosity toward immigrants, while those of the Ford Nation did. The supporters of Ford Nation were distinct among conventional supporters of RWP movements because they tended to be both immigrants and economically secure. Conclusions While both the PPC and Ford Nation are RWP movements, each movement is only nominally related, as evidenced by their different underlying “thick” ideologies and the substantial differences among their supporters.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".