MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122724857 · doi:10.22215/sjcs.v6i1.314

From Guardianism to Postmodernism: Historiography and the Interpretation of Canadian Political Culture

2015· article· en· W3122724857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colin D. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Journal of Canadian Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoriographyPolitical culturePoliticsPostmodernismIdeologyOrthodoxySociologyDemocracyPower (physics)Social scienceLawPolitical scienceEpistemologyHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article seeks to go some way toward shedding light on a certain dimension of Canadian intellectual history, specifically that dimension wherein the changing theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of Canadian political culture is the core subject matter. Canadian political culture will be defined here as that collation of ideas, principles, thoughts and opinions which foster the establishment and continuation of a set of political structures and institutions which are liberal democratic at their foundations. With this as a guiding definition the article examines the “paradigm shifts” in the study of English Canadian political culture that have taken place from the days of “The Makers of Canada,” through the ascendancy of the “Fragment Thesis,” to the more contemporary postmodernism of the “Liberal Order Framework.” The foundational assumption of the article is that debate and discussion about the Canadian experience in such fields as political philosophy, intellectual history, party ideology, constitutional structure, legislative procedure, executive power, judicial authority and local governance will tend to be shaped by the historiographical paradigm which has been most successful in making itself the accepted “orthodoxy” in the academic and intellectual circles of the period.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouthern Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207