Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1988 federal election is notable for its referendum-like focus on the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and the United States that was supported by the governing Progressive Conservatives and opposed by the Liberals and New Democrats. However, the events in Parliament leading up to and immediately following the 1988 federal election further highlight the democratic potential and importance of that and other election campaigns in relation to the policy roles that political parties and elections play in Canada and other parliamentary democracies. During the course of the passage of the bill to implement the free trade agreement negotiated with the United States, John Turner, the leader of the Official Opposition Liberals, announced that he had instructed the Liberal majority in the Senate to refuse to pass the bill into law prior to a general election on the agreement. In the absence of parliamentary approval of the legislation by the end of 1988 or an agreement by the governments of Canada and the United States to extend the deadline beyond the end of the year, the agreement would not take effect. In short, Mr Turner required that the free trade agreement be subject to approval by the Canadian public through an election campaign that would focus, in whole or in part, on the issue. Assailed for interfering with the democratic will of the electorate as expressed by the elected House of Commons, Mr Turner countered that Mr Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives did not have a mandate from the electorate to pursue a free trade agreement with the United States. In doing so, Mr Turner made explicit reference to the policy proposals put forward by the Progressive Conservatives during the course of the 1984 election campaign, including the lack of any specific commitment to pursue such an agreement. In effect, he argued that the actions of the Mulroney government were undemocratic due to lack of public approval and he dared Mr Mulroney to fight an election campaign on the agreement. With no other options available to him as a result of the Liberal majority in the Senate, Mr Mulroney took up the challenge and had an election called in the autumn of 1988.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".