Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book focuses on political parties and leadership selection in Alberta.It is based primarily on mail surveys administered to voters in the 1992 Progressive Conservative, the 1994 NDP, and the 1994 Liberal leadership elections.Leadership selection events provide rare opportunities for observing the internal workings of parties and the people who "stand between the politicians and the electorate."For many years almost every party in Canada chose its leader in a delegate convention dominated by individuals chosen by local constituency associations.These conventions have recently come under intense criticism, and many parties have moved to a form of universal balloting, which allows all party members to vote directly for their leader.This shift represents a major change in the way parties will operate, and raises important questions concerning party democracy and representation.Each of the parties examined here used a different method of leadership selection.Alberta's governing Conservative Party used a primary system that allowed all members to vote in their own constituency and that was widely credited with helping to maintain the party in office.The opposition Liberal Party allowed members to vote by phone from their own homes, while the NDP maintained the traditional delegate convention.The data collected from voters in each of these elections offers a unique opportunity to directly compare different methods of leadership selection.The richness of our data also enables us to present a comparison of the parties that have dominated Alberta's politics for the last quarter century.We use the data to examine the factors that influence leadership choice, to develop an attitudinal profile of each party, and to examine party "activists" in terms of their socio-demographic background and their experiences in both provincial and federal politics.During the period covered by our study, Alberta has been very much in the forefront of Canadian politics, providing a base for the federal Reform Party and garnering national attention for the manner in which its government eliminated the provincial deficit.It is our hope that this analysis of
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.444 | 0.241 |
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".