Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventy percent of Canadians think that 'advocacy groups' are a better vehicle for change than political parties; however, people involved in these groups are actually more involved in traditional political circles and party politics. This volume looks at who participates in these groups, which kinds of groups dominate the political agenda, what influence lobbying has on the government, and how, exactly, to make advocacy groups a more vibrant and accountable part of political life in this country. Advocacy Groups uses the Audit standards of responsiveness, inclusiveness, and participation to examine advocacy groups in Canada and assess the ways that they contribute to, or detract from, Canadian democracy. It argues that group activity represents an important form of political participation. Though some interests face greater organizational challenges than others, advocacy groups can play critical compensatory roles for interests that are often unrepresented in traditional political institutions. It also finds that while Canadian advocacy groups employ a wide range of strategies to draw attention to their concerns, those with greater financial resources generally have greater access to government decision-makers. This has been accentuated by recent trends in the reduction of government funding to advocacy groups. The book concludes with several recommendations for 'best practices' that groups can follow in their internal organization and efforts to influence public policy, as well as for actions that governments can take to engage in constructive consultation with groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.026 |
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".