Generic Social Process and the Problem of Success-Claiming: Defining Success on the Margins of Canadian Federal Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Envisioning success and its pursuit as an enduring feature of human group life, this paper examines success as a humanly constructed and realized social process. As framed herein, success represents the attribution by some audience of qualities associated with achievement, attainment, and/or accomplishment to social act(s) and/or social objects. Consistent with symbolic interactionist approaches to the study of deviance, success is not a quality of the situation at hand, but rather is audience-dependent. Therefore, while the social construction of success may be evidence-based, what is defined as successful outcomes and what constitutes evidence of success is subculturally located. Drawing on extended ethnographic research, an application of alternate definitions of success is examined in the context of those participating in an electorally unsuccessful political party—the Christian Heritage Party of Canada. Specifically, this paper examines the definition of success in terms of political influence, providing political alternatives and demonstrations of religious faithfulness as strategies of success-claiming. Framing success in process terms, this paper examines the trans-contextual and trans-historical qualities of “doing success” as a feature of everyday life.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".