The Conservative Party of Canada and brokerage politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My thesis fopic, The Conservative Party of Canada and Brokerage politics, was rooted in my personal interest in political campaigns and fostered by my undergraduate classes in canadian politics as well as in classical and contemporary political theory.Given their recent emergence in 2003, much has been commented in the media and the general public about the conservative Party of canada.Yet little has been written or carefully scrutinized on this new entity.My thesis aims to further our understanding of canadian political party behaviour and conservative politics by examining how the new Conservative Party organizes and conducts itself.Is the Conservative party an ideological party like their predecessors Refom/Alliance, or does it resemble a brokerage party like the preceding Progressive Conservatives?The scope of rny research considers behaviour of Canada,s major parties that were or are represented in Parliament since 1984.Although worthy of further study, minor parties like the Green Party or the Canadian Acton Party \tr'ere not considered simply because they were beyond the range of my topic.Synthesizing my thesis has been a humbling exercise of exfensive research and constructive writing.This endeavor would not have been possible without the aid and encouragement of several people.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".