MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399555976 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2023.2301625

Not a Contradiction in Terms: Exploring the Progressiveness of the Progressive Conservatives

2024· article· en· W4399555976 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthew Hayday

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsContradictionPsychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyEpistemologyLaw and economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the history of the political right in 20th-century Canada requires analyzing the most visible political expression of right-of-center policies and views of the post-Second World War period: the Progressive Conservative (PC) Party of Canada. For its first five decades, it was the de facto government-in-waiting when the Liberals were in office. It won six federal elections, governing 1957–1963, 1979–1980, and 1984–1993. While sometimes derided as centrist by commentators on the far right, its members defined themselves as conservatives, and their beliefs and policies incorporated elements of this ideology. The party had a more progressive wing—sometimes referred to as Red Tories—who believed the better off in society had responsibilities to care for the less fortunate. This article considers the role that progressive values and policies played within the PC Party, and how the party and its leadership responded to changing understandings of what it meant to be progressive in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0130.042
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.166 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207