Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been few studies of Canadian minority governments despite the fact that between 1957 and 2008, 9 of the 18 general federal elections produced minority governments. How such governments manage to remain in power (viability) and gain support for their legislative proposals (effectiveness) has not been investigated thoroughly. Three theoretical perspectives (the rational choice tradition, new institutionalism, and the party politics and party systems approach) are used to examine the dynamics at play. Data for four minority governments (Diefenbaker 1957–58, Pearson 1963–65, Clark 1979–80, and Harper 2006–08) have been gathered from archival records, debates and votes in the House of Commons, autobiographies, third party accounts and earlier studies on minority governments. Viability and effectiveness would appear to depend on (1) bargaining power (interparty dynamics and intra-party cohesion) and (2) agenda control (House business, confidence tests and other institutional features). The study also stresses the importance of government concessions, and the capacity and skill of parliamentary actors in using the institutional and party system levers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".