Sessions on Saskatchewan Politics and Political Economy Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Green Parties were founded all across the industrialized world during the 1980s. But after twenty-five years of running in elections, and participating in several coalition governments, the electoral support for almost all of them has stagnated at between 5 % and 10%. There is no country where the Greens have made an electoral breakthrough, not even in Germany, where they were from the beginning the most successful party. Why is this the case? The early Green parties were ecology parties with a strong commitment to social justice, opposition to militarism, war and violence, and participatory democracy. Since the early 1990s most of the parties have become more moderate in their policy orientation and have embraced the reformism of environmentalism. The trend in all the parties is away from the original Green model of participatory democracy and towards the top down hierarchical model of the traditional parliamentary political party. The early strong commitment to women’s liberation has faded. If the Greens are now positioning themselves to be just another middle of the road party, what is their future? As the large mainstream political parties have now all embraced some degree of environmentalism, what is their purpose? At the present time the world is faced with a number of very serious ecological, political
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.258 | 0.063 |
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".