Canadian Gallup Poll, April 1981, #448_2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Gallup poll seeks the opinions of Canadians, on predominantly political issues. The questions ask opinions about changing the Constitution and other political issues within the country. There are also questions on other topics of interest and importance to the country and government, such as opinions about the teaching profession, "Reaganomics" and comparing private and government companies. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic and social variables. Topics of interest include: adopting "Reaganomics"; the best option if the British parliament rejects patriation; buying back U.S. firms in Canada; comparing pension plans for private and government companies; comparing rate of pay for private and government companies; comparing working conditions for private and government companies; the effects of Reagan policies on Canada; efforts to patriate the Canadian Constitution; including the Charter of Rights in the Constitution; opinions about the teaching profession; opinion of U.S. investment in Canada; opportunities for women at work; performance in the Constitutional debate; whether or not Britain should amend the Canadian Constitution; support for Joe Clark as leader of the Conservative party; using the Canadian Constitution to unite the country. Basic demographic variables are also included.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.047 |
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".