Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to capture the essence of George Hara Williams's ideology as it developed and matured, I adopted the phrase "socialist agrarian populism." Though an admittedly clumsy construct, it captures Williams's foundational political beliefs and their priority.His "socialism" cannot be easily separated from his "agrarian populism." He wove a complex tapestry of the two in his speeches, pamphlets, and radio broadcasts.Most importantly Williams was a socialist, in the sense of Naylor's "labour socialism." 1 This was the filter through which he engaged agrarian populism.Socialism was the ultimate goal, and by socialism Williams meant class struggle-to wrest state power from capitalist control by "those who toil on farms, or in the mines, or on the railways, and in the offices, shops, mills and factories-and the unemployed." 2 Upon winning power through democratic means, the new socialist government would take the commanding heights of the economy, natural resources, and all transportation systems and utilities into public ownership.He was also a left agrarian populist.He was convinced that middle-level farmers could be won over to socialism.He admired the political, economic, and organizational successes of the farmers' self-organization from the turn of the century to the 1920s.He cleaved to the minority opinion in the agrarian populist movement of advocating an alliance with labour in order to build a people's party to achieve socialism.Williams was a working farmer in a province where farmers were the majority.Saskatchewan farmers dominated politics through their
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".