Preface and Acknowledgments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, the study of Canadian politics has changed profoundly.The introspective and sometimes insular style that informed Canadian political science for most of its history has given way to a deeper engagement with, and integration into, the theory and practice of comparative politics.This volume is the first sustained attempt to describe, analyze, and assess "the comparative turn" in the study of Canadian politics in three major areas of the discipline: multiculturalism, diversity, and rights; federalism and multilevel governance; and political parties and public policy.This collection had its genesis in a series of informal corridor conversations in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto, loosely organized around the question "where is the study of Canadian politics headed?"Canadian political scientists are a diverse lot, and attempts to distill the essence of the discipline, much less predict its trajectory, are difficult.Yet even within our own eclectic department, our local "self-study" returned again and again to the same theme: increasingly, what unites the study of Canadian politics is the conviction that scholars of Canadian politics can both learn from and contribute to the study of comparative politics.Scholar by scholar, subfield by subfield, almost all of our Canadianist colleagues at the University of Toronto have taken a comparative turn away from the habit of studying Canada as a stand-alone exercise.For some, this turn means using theoretical categories developed in the literature of comparative politics to illuminate essentially Canadian subjects.For others, it means placing the Canadian case in a larger comparative perspective, the better to understand the distinctive patterns of our own politics.For still others, it means understanding Canada's place in the context of larger, global processes.One way or another, however, there is a shared scholarly tendency to resituate the study of Canadian politics in a comparative perspective.At some level, we're all comparativists now.From those informal conversations emerged the idea for a day-long workshop, held under the auspices of the Canadian Political Science Association,
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.228 | 0.120 |
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".