Bibliographic record
Abstract
atrice Dutil has written an important study of prime ministerial power in Canada.Drawing on a deep knowledge of Canadian history, a personal familiarity with government operations, and a close reading of international studies of prime ministerial and presidential power, he parts ways with political scientists and journalists who assert that "governing from the centre" suddenly began in the 1970s.He also avoids careless and over-simplified generalizations about the centralization of prime ministerial power, instead looking for answers that focus on how politics and administrations have evolved.In making his arguments, Professor Dutil establishes the fundamental importance of political history, which he notes has fallen by the wayside in both Canadian and American universities.As this book was in preparation, historians Fredrik Logevall and Kenneth Osgood drew attention to this state of affairs in a New York Times article titled "Why Did We Stop Teaching Political History." Written during the corrosive American presidential campaign of 2016, the authors point to continuous references to Roosevelt and the New Deal, Reagan and the new conservativism, and to even Andrew Jackson made during the campaign, but observe that "the public's love for political stories belies a crisis in the profession.American political history as a field of study has cratered." Few professional historians now teach it; few courses are offered.Because of this, the United States has lost "a vital part of this country's continuing democratic discussion." In the
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.464 | 0.318 |
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".