Canadian democracy from the ground up : perceptions and performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foreword / Michael MacMillan and Alison Loat Introduction / Elisabeth Gidengil and Heather Bastedo 1 Attitudes toward Democratic Norms and Practices: Canada in Comparative Perspective / Lawrence LeDuc and Jon H. Pammett 2 Canadians' Evaluations of MPs: Performance Matters / Nick Ruderman 3 Repertoire-Building or Elite-Challenging? Understanding Political Engagement in Canada / Michael A. Painter-Main 4 Outsiders: Agency and the Non-Engaged / Heather Bastedo, Wayne Chu, and Jane Hilderman 5 Media and Political Inequality / Quinn Albaugh and Christopher Waddell 6 The Story behind the Story: Evaluating the Content of Political News / Heather Bastedo, Quinn Albaugh, and Alex Marland 7 Social Media and Agenda Setting / Wayne Chu and Fred Fletcher 8 Representing Canadians: Is the 41st Parliament Still a Vertical Mosaic? / Livianna Tossutti and Jane Hilderman 9 MPs on the Home Front: How Constituency Characteristics Influence Representational Approaches / Munroe Eagles, Royce Koop, and Alison Loat 10 Democratic Responsiveness in the House of Commons / Kelly Blidook 11 A Tale of Two Perspectives: Election Promises and Government Actions in Canada / Francois Petry Conclusion: Taking Stock of Canadian Democracy from the Ground Up / Elisabeth Gidengil and Heather Bastedo Appendix: Samara 2012 Citizens' Survey Methodology Index
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.002 |
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".