The impact of the federal elections on the transformation of the Canadian Party System In 1990-2020 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study presents the evolution of the Canadian party system in the period from 1993 to 2021. The author believes that the results of the general elections in Canada, from 1993 to 2021, had the most direct impact on the transformation of the party system of this state, forming its parliamentary multiparty system at the national level. According to the author, it is worth highlighting three immediate periods of evolution of the Canadian party system: from 1993 to 2006, from 2006 to 2015, and from 2015 to 2019. According to the author, this periodization reflected not only the evolution of the party system within the framework of Canadian parliamentarism, but also changes in political ideologies themselves. The author emphasizes that the 1993 parliamentary elections were the most important milestone in the entire transformation of the Canadian party system, forming new regional parties in the Canadian parliament. The study notes that the 2006 parliamentary elections were extremely important, since the Conservative Party won the elections for the first time, providing a significant alternative to the liberals. The results of the parliamentary elections were no less significant in terms of influence on the development of leading political ideologies in Canada. The author concludes that the results of the parliamentary elections had the most direct impact on the change of political leadership in the parties. This is indicative of the examples of S. Harper, who led the Conservatives to victory in the 2006 elections, as well as J. Trudeau, who overcame the crisis of liberalism and won the 2015 elections. From the author’s point of view, the elections changed the political landscape, contributed to the strengthening of some parties and the disappearance of others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".