Bibliographic record
Abstract
s fractured political culture MaJoRitY govERnMEnt RUlE F or well over a century, Canada was a country with a very stable political tradition.There were two dominant parties-the Conservatives and the Liberals-that between them easily garnered 75 -80 percent of the popular vote in federal elections.Both were brokerage parties, without hard and fast political principles.Minorit y governments were not unheard of in Canada, but the norm was majority governments.So why have Canadians, through three successive elections-2004, 2006, 2008-elected Parliaments without a majority government?Why does the political party system with five major contenders today appear to be so fragmented when compared with the not so distant past? tHE RootS of MinoRitY govERnMEntThe key to the fragmentation of the party system lies in the constitutional debates that dominated the 1980s and 1990s.Pierre Trudeau's patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1981 -82 was carried out against the strong opposition of the Parti Québécois government of Quebec headed by René Lévesque.The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney attempted to remedy this some years later through the Meech Lake Accord, which among other things, recognized Quebec as constituting a distinct society within Canada.That clause provoked considerable opposition in the rest of Canada, ultimately leading to the Accord's failure in 1990.As a direct consequence of some of these developments, Lucien Bouchard, a leading minister in the Mulroney government, resigned in 1990 and formed a new sovereignty-supporting party, the Bloc Québécois.In the 1993 federal election, this party, which only contested seats in Quebec, won 54 of the 75 seats and 49 percent of the popular vote in that BY PHiliP RESniCk
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".