MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237222742 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648955

Trumping Canada? Continuity And Change In Canadian Conservative Campaign Rhetoric

2021· preprint· en· W4237222742 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daryn Tyndale

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations in Latin America
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityProfessional Engineers Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricRhetorical questionVictoryIdeologyPolitical scienceAppealVulgarityMedia studiesMainstreamLawSociologyPoliticsLiteratureLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Conservative Party of Canada has been widely noted for its meticulous branding and tight message control. In contrast, US president Donald Trump, representing the traditionally conservative Republican Party, demonstrates a remarkable lack of message discipline: his infamous unscripted candor often descends into vulgarity. Yet, despite his lack of message discipline, Trump was successfully elected president, suggesting that his distinctive rhetorical style may have contributed to his electoral appeal. This major research paper explores whether Donald Trump’s surprising victory may have inspired Canadian Conservatives to alter their own rhetorical strategies in the hopes of achieving similar success. I conducted a qualitative rhetorical analysis on six campaign speeches delivered by Conservative Party leaders in Canada’s two most recent federal elections (Andrew Scheer in 2019 and Stephen Harper in 2015). The results suggest that the Conservatives’ campaign speech rhetoric does not appear to be converging with Donald Trump’s. However, further investigation into other sites of discourse, such as leaders’ debates, press conferences, or party documents, may reveal otherwise—particularly when it comes to broader ideological orientation and the treatment of minority groups

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Relations in Latin AmericaFrench-language works237,207