Bibliographic record
Abstract
n recent years, politicians and pundits alike have grown increasingly concerned about the health of Canadian democracy.Jeffrey Simpson, the well-known columnist for The Globe and Mail, published The Friendly Dictatorship in 2001, in which he argued that Canada had become a de facto one-party state, much like Japan has been for most of the post-war period.In both cases, a single party dominates political life and monopolizes electoral politics, crowding out alternative voices and making many citizens question the value of their vote.If the outcome of an election is pretty much a foregone conclusion, why invest the energy needed to cast a ballot?Paul Martin, before he replaced Jean Chrtien as leader of the Liberal Party and prime minister, gave an important speech on the subject of the "democratic deficit."Martin noted that in the federal elections of 1997 and 2000, the number of people who did not vote at all exceeded the number of people who had voted for the winning party.For him, this disturbing fact was the equivalent of "the canary in the coalmine": it pointed to fundamental flaws in our democratic system that need to be addressed by policy makers through meaningful institutional reforms, not merely papered over by cosmetic changes.Declining voter turnoutit reached a historic low of 60 per cent of registered voters in the 2004 federal election-is one symptom of the democratic deficit, or democratic malaise in Canada.Unhealthy levels of cynicism toward the political class are another: a distressingly high number of citizens view our politicians as corrupt liars who will do or say anything to get elected.And finally, the growing disengagement of young voters-barely one in five voters under the age of 24 bothers to cast a ballot-is one of the most worrisome trends in contemporary Canadian politics.While politicians and many observers of the Canadian political scene agree that the system is in need of an overhaul, they disagree, sometimes vehemently, on the remedies that would improve its health and make it
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".