The Calgary School through the lens of Alexis de Tocqueville
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis aims to further expand on the intellectual influence of Tocqueville in the Calgary School’s work. It is aimed at trying to better understand the Calgary School and Alexis de Tocqueville. This thesis tries to address a lack of literature on the Calgary School, there is a lack of literature on them and oftentimes they are dismissed out of hand by left-leaning scholars and critics. This project is not an apology for the Calgary School merely to better understand their ideas and the influences behind them. To accomplish this goal three different themes are used that correspond to the first three chapters of this thesis. The overall common thread or unifying theme used to tie Tocqueville and the Calgary is a critique of the trajectory of liberal democracy, that while critical still supports the basic tenets of liberal democracy. This leads to an understanding that is more subtle, and more generous reading of neoconservative thought in Canada. Categorizations such as neoconservative can in fact be misleading and misrepresentative of the actual thought and ideas of the authors at hand. There are firm philosophical underpinnings to the thought of the Calgary School. Neoconservatism can be perspective that is both sensitive to the values of liberal democracy and critical of the problems inherent with it. While not without its issues, neoconservatism deserves to have its influences more thoroughly investigated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".