MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388147453 · doi:10.24124/c677/2017676

The 2014 Provincial Election in New Brunswick

2018· article· en· W4388147453 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jeff Lewis, Tom Bateman, Don Desserud

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberal PartyPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Realigning electionPower (physics)Political economyGeneral electionMargin (machine learning)Momentum (technical analysis)Public administrationLawEconomic historySociologyCommunismPoliticsSocialismEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 2006 and 2010 New Brunswick provincial elections, power changed hands as control of the government went from Progressive Conservative to Liberal (2006) and back to Progressive Conservative (2010). The 2014 election found Premier David Alward attempting to return an incumbent party to the government benches for the first time since Bernard Lord in 2003. Alward faced three new party leaders in Liberal Brian Gallant, New Democrat Dominic Cardy and the Green’s David Coon. Early polls predicted a Liberal landslide but the margin would close as Election Day approached with the Liberal earning a small 27 to 21 seat majority over the PC Party with Coon winning the first Green seat in the province and Cardy’s NDP being shutout. With the results, New Brunswick would find itself with another under-forty premier, Gallant was 32 years old when sworn-in, and a vacancy in the Progressive Conservative leadership as Alward swiftly stepped down after his party’s defeat. The election reflected another example of New Brunswick’s current turnstile party system with the two major parties differing on few issues and struggling to find electoral momentum in a stubborn provincial economy stymied by structural demographic challenges.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Political Science ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207