Electoral competition in Canada among centre-left parties: liberals versus social democracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses the electoral competition in Canada among centre-left parties. In Canada, the concept of ‘centre-lefts’ has been particularly pertinent over the last decade. Roughly two-thirds of Canadian voters have values and policy positions that could be broadly defined as ‘left-of-centre’ or ‘progressive’ in Canadian parlance. Unlike other Western countries, where there is a more distinct left/right polarisation in party systems, Canada has two relatively large centre-left parties: the centrist Liberals, that has won successive majority governments during the 20th century, and the fledgling New Democratic Party (NDP), that often comes third in Canadian federal elections. The other two centre-left parties are the social democratic Bloc Québécois, who advocate for the separation of Québec from Canada, and run candidates only in that province, and the Canadian Greens, who run candidates in all constituencies but routinely struggle to elect even one MP and win more than 5 per cent of the national vote.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".