Bibliographic record
Abstract
Popular politics has been a source of endless fascination to me since, as a second-year undergraduate, I was introduced to the subject in Professor John Beattie's course on eighteenth-century England at the University of Toronto.Since then, I have focused my interest on the relationship between popular politics and the emergence of party systems in the context of parliamentary government.My doctoral work on political parties in Ontario in the 18405 suggested that there was an important story to be told about popular politics in the Upper Canadian period.The party organizers of the 18405, it became clear, were working in the context of a province-wide political culture whose existence could not logically be explained simply as the product of infrequent general elections.Moreover, the deep political divisions within the province seemed to antedate the Rebellions of 1837.How had this political culture emerged, and what were the sources of the divisions?My efforts to answer these questions have taken me far longer than I ever imagined.The subject, however, has sustained my interest through the production of three other books, innumerable life crises, and my return to school to study law.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.457 | 0.267 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".