Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book was conceived and work on it started when Bill Cross and Lisa Young came to the Political Science department at the University of British Columbia in the fall of 1996.Though we had originally thought that we might undertake a study of the upcoming (1997) general election, it soon became apparent that it was more important to explore and explain the far-reaching changes that were reshaping Canadian party politics.This is our version of the map that will order the country's politics as we enter the twenty-first century.We have had a good deal of help with this study and we would like to express our thanks to everyone who has contributed to it.First, we are grateful to the many women and men actively engaged in party politics who have taken time to talk to us -in formal interview settings, in campaign offices, on the telephone, in convention halls, and via questionnaire forms.These are the individuals who make Canadian democracy work, and the fact that we study them and their handiwork is testimony to our admiration and respect for their commitment to our political system.Next, we extend our appreciation to the several individuals who have worked hard as our research assistants -Adrienne Nash and Jennifer Delaney, in Vancouver; Lawna Hurl, in Calgary; and Anamitra Deb, in Sackville.Though they might not get the public credit they deserve for ferreting out material and organizing our research, we know the extent to which they made our work both easier and more pleasant, and we are grateful.Finally, we want to thank the Political Science department at the University of British Columbia for bringing us together and providing us with a congenial home to begin the work on this book.Though it is almost certainly invidious to point to individuals, thanks are owed to Don
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.377 | 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; 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".