Bibliographic record
Abstract
politics during this period of Liberal dominance.'? D.H. Bocking's study of Saskatchewan's first general election in 1905 focuses on the main issue of that contest (separate schools) and ethnic and religious divisions within the electorate.18Numerous scholars have written on the 1929 general election due to the Ku Klux Klan's involvement and the emotionalism it engendered in that campaign.Although Patrick Kyba and Peter Russell differ on which political party was responsible for making race and religion the central campaign issues, historians concur that the Liberals' defeat was due to a realignment and unification of voters opposed to the Gardiner government.19George Hoffman and Andrew Milnor have written on the 1934 Saskatchewan provincial election and its key issues such as the drought and economic depression.2°Milnor and Hoffman conclude that the Liberals won in 1934 as a result of being perceived as the "lesser of the evils" by unenthusiastic voters.The Conservatives were identified with the Depression, and the Farmer-Labor party had to defend its land policy against accusations that it was Communist-inspired.21Ken Andrews states that there was a vacuum in Saskatchewan politics between 1935 and 1938 due to the lack of credible opposition to the Liberal government.During this period, the CCF, Conservative and Social Credit parties jockeyed for political 17
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".